HC Deb 10 July 1974 vol 876 cc1377-423

(1) Subject to the provisions of the Section every worker shall have the right not to be—

  1. (a) excluded from membership;
  2. (b) expelled from membership
of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

(2) The exclusion or explusion of a worker from membership of a union, branch or section shall not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the worker is of a description different from that or those of the majority of the members of that union, branch or section (as the case may be) or does not possess the appropriate qualifications for such membership.

(3) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that union, branch or section.

(4) Where any such declaration has been made and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such other relief (including compensation) as the Court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.—[Mr. Hayhoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

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

Mr. Speaker

It would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time new Clause 5—[Rights of workers in respect of trade union membership.]

Mr. Hayhoe

I am grateful for your guidance on that point, Mr. Speaker.

Apart from the broader comments made about the availability of the various papers and the efforts made to produce the papers we require for this Report stage, may I say how grateful we are for the very considerable efforts made on Thursday and Friday of last week to have these documents available.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made and express to him and his colleagues, and indeed to Mr. Speaker and the servants of the House, our deep regret about what has occurred. We think it constitutes a very serious difficulty for the House of Commons if papers are delayed in this manner and if special arrangements have to be made for their production. I apologise to everyone that that has occurred. We have done everything we can to deal with the situation.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The Civil Service Department has worked very hard to overcome the difficulties. We do not regard the present situation as one that is satisfactory in any sense.

Mr. Hayhoe

One can but hope that this harmonious beginning to the debate will be carried through the whole of the Report stage. I suspect that it might not go quite that way.

The purpose of the new clause and of the other changes and amendments we hope to propose to the Bill is straightforward. Our intentions are to improve the Bill, to change it from something which was apparently drafted by the TUC for the TUC, in the interests of the TUC, into legislation which would be broadly acceptable to this House and to modern Labour, Liberal and Conservative opinion, and members and' nonmembers of unions.

There is a possibility open to us in Parliament during the next two days to put this legislation into a form which would be broadly acceptable to moderate opinion and which I hope the House will think it worth while attempting to achieve.

We made some progress in Committee. It would be wrong for me to go into detail about the changes that have already been made in the Bill. The form in which we have it demonstrates where the changes have occurred because they are marked on our copies. By retaining the Code of Practice and by other changes the Bill has been improved. I hope that new clause 1 will commend itself to the House and will in its way improve the Bill still further.

The clause is concerned with safeguards for the individual against arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination involving either exclusion or expulsion from membership of a trade union. It would establish rights at law and provide a civil, not criminal, remedy if the decisions of industrial tribunals on questions of this kind were not carried through. Only if a decision or a declaration which an industrial tribunal made on a matter referred to it as a result of the provisions of the clause was ignored by the trade union concerned could an application be made to the High Court.

The importance of these safeguards is underlined and increased in the context of the closed shop. It is important in an absolute sense, but particularly when we consider it in the context of closed shops or, as a result of the Bill, where union membership agreements apply.

There is a great deal of common ground here. It is common ground between both sides of the House, I think, that such arbitrary action by trade unions is rare. It happens very seldom. Nevertheless, some safeguards are desirable.

The Secretary of State, in his statement on 22nd March when he outlined his proposals for the Bill, made it clear that he felt that in either this or a later Bill consideration was being given to providing safeguards against arbitrary exclusion or expulsion from union membership. Therefore, from the first moment the right hon. Gentleman at least referred to the need for or the importance of safeguards against such arbitrary action, even though I feel sure that at that time he recognised that it was rare for such action to have taken place in the past.

On Second Reading the Secretary of State again referred to this matter. On 7th May, referring to this as a matter of controversy which he thought was important, he said: We thought that probably the best way to approach the matter was along the lines of the Donovan Report, which laid down a procedure for dealing with these questions which is perfectly feasible. On the other hand, the General Council of the TUC takes the view strongly that other developments have taken place since the publication of the Donovan Report which have assisted the situation, and it has good arguments in support of that view. The TUC has taken steps to try to ensure that proper procedures are available to trade unionists and people generally who may be affected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 231–2.] The right hon. Gentleman gave a balanced statement at that time indicating that it was an important matter and that Donovan had suggested one way in which it might be dealt with, but that the TUC took a slightly different view and he was still considering the matter.

The Secretary of State's intentions on this matter seemed good. Therefore, it is surprising how bad has been the specific performance that flows from those good intentions.

When we debated the matter in Committee we had an indication by the Minister of State that the Government would consider the debate carefully and perhaps bring forward on Report some form of words to meet this point. However, we have had nothing on this matter. I suppose there is still hope that redemption may yet come to the Secretary of State and that in reply he, or his hon. Friend the Minister of State, will indicate that the clause is acceptable. I hope that he will, because that would be the best way to proceed.

The clause is not all that far away from what the Secretary of State was talking about on Second Reading when he referred to the Donovan approach to these matters which is set out at paragraph 612 of the report where the suggestion is made that an individual should have a right of complaint to a new and independent review body. He should be entitled to ask that body for a declaration that, upon his undertaking to abide by the rules of the union affecting existing members, he should, notwithstanding any absolute discretion vested in the union or in any committee of the union, become and remain a member. There was the idea of the matter being reviewed by some impartial body, that body being asked to give a declaration and, if that declaration was not followed by the union concerned, there being a civil remedy before the courts. Again, that is common ground as to what Donovan was recommending.

The clause suggests that we make use of the industrial tribunals which, under the unfair dismissal provisions of the 1971 Act and in this legislation, if it goes through in its present form, have to look at similar questions. We believe that the machinery of the industrial tribunals would be a good way of handling the matter.

I do not want to make too much of the reference to "In Place of Strife", but I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that we could find there the appropriate comment in favour of following the suggestion by Donovan of having safeguards for the individual against arbitrary action of this kind.

Having, I hope, carried the House with me so far on this point, may I now attempt to deal with the two major arguments that seem to be put forward against such action being taken in the Bill.

The first argument is that, because examples of arbitrary action are rare, there is no need to hurry to do anything about it or to delve into the matter at all. To some extent that was the argument adduced by the Minister of State in Committee when we talked about these matters. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) argued that if there were only one example there ought to be legislation to defend the rights of the individual. That argument seemed to commend itself to a substantial number of hon. Members in Committee. As I said, the first argument was that as it did not happen often there was no need to deal with it.

The second argument was that we should not worry about it in this Bill but should wait for the employment protection Bill as that would be the right place to deal with it.

On the first point, I should like to call in aid Professor Kahn-Freund who is a considerable expert on these matters. He was quoted as such by the Minister of State in Committee. I should like to refer to what Professor Kahn-Freund said in the Gaitskell Memorial Lecture of 1970. I am not sure whether, being the Gaitskell Memorial Lecture, it would altogether commend itself to the Secretary of State, but perhaps it would be a commendation to some of his hon. Friends.

4.30 p.m.

At any rate, I think that what he said at that time was important. He said— and I am quoting from the Modern Law Review of May 1970 which gives the text of the lecture: Misuse of trade union power is a rare phenomenon in this country, but it can occur and it does. The law, however, is concerned with the marginal cases. This is where empirical social scientists and lawyers so often fail to understand each other. The lawyer looks at the marginal case, and the empirical social scientist treats with contempt proposals to deal with anything which according to the statistics happens only rarely. But how often does it happen? 'But suppose it does happen!'—how often have I heard this dialogue and taken part in it? It is the possibility of a misuse of union power that is on my mind far more than its actuality—though, as I shall have to mention, actual cases are not missing. Most employers are conscientious in the treatment of employees with long employment records. This is no answer to a demand for legislation on unfair dismissals. Unions do not normally abuse their powers to refuse admission or to expel members. This is no answer to a plea for legislation on this matter either. I believe Kahn-Freund makes the case as strongly as it needs to be made on the requirement that legislation there must be.

Turning now to the last leg of the argument—why do not we wait until the Employment Protection Bill?—the answer was provided by the Secretary of State himself because when he was asked why he had not introduced a one- or two-clause Bill to repeal the 1971 Act, his reply was that it would have meant that had he done so all the immunities and protections for the trade unions would have been removed and that, therefore, it would have been wrong for him to have a short trade union repeal Bill if it would have removed the immunities and protections from the unions as a result of its passage.

Surely, if that is borne in mind, we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State why he does not apply the same standards to the safeguards and protection of the individual? Why is he so concerned to protect the strong and so unwilling to protect the weak? Is this his kind of social justice—increasing the privileges, rights and immunities for the strong unions and the elimination of present safeguards for the individual in this context? That may be his concept of social justice. It certainly is not ours, and that is why we want this new clause.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

I hope the Secretary of State will look at this clause with a view to accepting it. The case has been stated in very moderate terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). I believe the Secretary of State will recognise that it is basically a very moderate proposal. I should like to describe it as one based on natural justice.

My hon. Friend has quite rightly stressed that the cases which occur may be relatively few, but I would plead with the Secretary of State and his colleagues that whenever there is an organisation of human beings there is likely to be the occasional case. I imagine few of us in our experience as constituency representatives have not come across a single case. Certainly, I have in my own experience. Whereas such cases may be relatively few, I would emphasise to the Secretary of State that if by some ill-fortune a person is wrongly expelled from, or wrongly refused inclusion in, the membership of a trade union which is appropriate to his employment, the consequences to that individual can be very serious.

In most cases of this kind exclusion of people from the appropriate union means exclusion from the only kind of employment for which they have had any training, or the only kind of employment for which they have acquired any skill. So if by any chance this kind of thing happens, even in occasional cases, any individual affected is virtually excluded from the only place in which he can make a reasonable living commensurate with his skill and training. It is in that respect that I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to include this very reasonable, restrained and moderate proposal in this Bill.

The objectives of the Liberal new clause which is being taken with this new clause are roughly the same although their approach is rather different. They, too, have the same basic objective, and I would plead that it is one of natural justice. I fear that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues sometimes treat with tremendous suspicion anything relating to trade union legislation which does not come from their own proposals. But by no stretch of the imagination can anybody on the other side interpret this proposal as having been designed to inflict any ill on trade unionism.

My hon. Friend quite rightly contrasted the strength of some of the larger unions with the weakness of the individual. I recognise that many who have grown up on the labour side in industry, in the Labour Party and the trade union movement have, perhaps quite understandably, always thought of the importance of combination and have sometimes set that above the right of the individual. I understand the reasons.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Eric Heffer)

Otherwise there would be no rights of the individual.

Sir Raymond Gower

The hon. Gentleman says there would be no rights of the individual if there were no rights of combination. But I would say that the right of combination if totally unfettered can destroy the right of the individual. We are seeking nothing to harm the right of combination, nothing to damage the right of trade unions to do the job for which they were designed. We are seeking merely to ensure that when there appears to be a case of perhaps irresponsible or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion, members of each trade union should have this right of an independent examination of the case.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is always pleading for justice for those who are wronged; and the right hon. Gentleman has had a very honourable career, in this respect, pleading the cases of individuals who have been wronged by authority, by the State or by big organisations. I should have thought that this would particularly appeal to him in that context, and it is in that spirit that I hope the Minister will accept this new clause.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

The 1971 Industrial Relations Act sought to provide certain remedies for certain industrial ills. Unfortunately, the institutions created by that Act proved to be unacceptable to large sections of the community and in particular the trade union movement. But the fact that those provisions proved unacceptable does not mean that the ills have ceased to exist nor does it absolve us from providing alternative methods of dealing with those ills. This clause simply seeks to provide an alternative way of dealing with an ill which it is accepted is limited in extent but is none the less real, and it is important and necessary that we solve it if we are to have fairness as well as order in our industrial relations today. Indeed, if the trade union movement is to have the increasing importance in our national life that Labour Members would wish, it is all the more important to protect individuals from arbitrary and un fair exclusions and expulsions. If the closed shop which the Labour Party and the Bill support is to grow, even more does it become important to have such protection.

Many of us will have had representations from people in the newspaper industry about aspects of the Bill. The way in which unfairness can operate is illustrated by the case of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette, on which the editor, who was a member of the National Union of Journalists, was fined £50 and four senior executives were expelled from membership of the unions because they sought to bring out the paper during an official strike. Everyone concerned with that industry knows that all editors and executives regard it as their over-riding professional requirement—a matter Of professional etiquette almost—to bring the paper out. The case is under review by the internal procedures of the NUJ, but the fact that it could occur shows how desperately individuals need to be protected when the closed shop may become increasingly possible and how necessary it is to preserve not only individual rights but the freedom of the Press.

No one is exaggerating the extent of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth certainly did not. But it does exist. It has been recognised by Donovan and by the Secretary of State. The Minister of State recognised it in Committee when he said: We are, therefore, already looking into this problem with a view to dealing with it in the Employment Protection Bill. If we can find the right form of words for the Employment Protection Bill before we get to the end of this one, it would only be proper, in the light of the assurances I have already given, that we should try to bring them forward on Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 23rd May 1974, c. 212.] So far, there has been no sign of anything coming forward. It is unacceptable that the Bill should leave this House without this kind of protection for the individual, so it is incumbent on the Opposition to bring forward a reasonable solution to a problem which even the Government admit to exist. It simply will not do to ask us to wait for the next Bill if only because in the interim some people may be unfairly excluded or expelled. They would have no redress unless provision were made in this Bill.

If the principle is accepted, the question then arises—is the solution in the new clause reasonable? I think it is. Labour Members who will be familiar with some alternative proposals made in Committee will know that these proposals involve the minimum control of the conduct of unions compatible with the protection which we say is necessary. Labour Members and unionists abhor above all else detailed intervention in the affairs of unions and detailed instructions on how those affairs should be conducted.

4.45 p.m.

It will be observed that no such intervention is proposed in the new clause, which is phrased entirely negatively. Unions can organise their own business in their own way and there will be intervention only if their procedures, which can be as varied as they are today, amount in a particular case to arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

It will be the industrial tribunal which decides whether there has been arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination. I hope that with the passage of this Bill the discrimination against such tribunals by the trade union movement will cease and that once again unionists will be members of them. They will be familiar and sympathetic with the practices of trade unions and will not rush to the conclusion that there has been unfairness or arbitrary behaviour. They will recognise that the first task of an aggrieved individual is to exhaust the procedures provided by the union movement itself. If the TUC succeeds in its efforts to revise the rules of unions to make it less likely that there will be such discrimination—efforts to which the Minister referred in Committee—the scope for applications to the tribunals will be few and anyone who makes one without exhausting the prescribed procedures will fail in his application.

The determining body will be a tribunal which should be sympathetic to the genuine aspirations and legitimate procedures of the movement. What is proposed is in line with Donovan, with common sense and with reason. It is a rational and moderate solution to a limited but real problem and should have the assent of the House.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

I am sure that we accept that no hon. Member and no party has all the answers to the problems of industrial relations or union legislation. I have therefore tried to meet the spirit of the Bill by agreeing entirely that the 1971 Act should be repealed, while trying to ensure that this Bill contained adequate safeguards for the individual. That was my whole approach in Committee—that the spirit of the Bill is right but some parts of it may require tidying and trimming to do the job that little bit better.

This provision falls into that category. I am advised that it will be possible to have a separate Division on new Clause 5 if the Chair agrees. I understand that if I smile kindly at the occupant of the Chair, he may so agree. The difference between new Clause 5 and new Clause 1 is simple but important. New Clause 5 is an attempt to deal with criticisms that the Minister of State made of my amendment in Committee. One was as follows: Therefore, my first argument against these amendments is a general one, namely, that they attempt to impose over the generality of organised working conditions a situation which is based heavily upon the closed shop."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E;23rd May 1974, c. 195–6.] I have attempted, therefore, to devise a new clause that deals only with the closed shop situation. I very much hope that in those circumstances the Government will find it possible to accept new Clause 5, about which I and my colleagues feel extremely strongly. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the cases are few and are declining in number. If one case exists the law ought to be capable of protecting that individual.

The House will understand that it is a major concession on the part of the Liberal Party that it will accept the closed shop principle. It is something foreign to the basic philosophy of Liberalism. But we are prepared to accept that situation in order to get agreement on legis lation required in relation to trade unions and industry.

It is surely not unreasonable, however, to ask the Government to accept equally that there must be some concession from their side within that sort of situation. The concession that I ask them to make—which may be truly a concession in view of their party dogma; I say that kindly—is simply that if we accept the closed shop situation, which we shall, in return they should say that in that situation they will protect the individual to the extent that he has a legal right to belong to a trade union, provided that he complies with the rules of the union and the necessities required by the union in regard to basic membership.

That is all that new Clause 5 is saying as I interpret it and intended it. I hope that the Government will accept it.

New Clause 1 goes much further than new Clause 5, because new Clause 1 applies the situation to everyone. Clearly, as a Liberal, for me that is the ideal situation, which I should like. But if the Government will concede and accept new Clause 5, I would take that as evidence of a spirit of compromise, accept the situation, and say that we are happy to have gone at least some way along the road. But if the Government are unable to concede new Clause 5, the logic of the situation leads me to conclude that if we cannot have half the cake we might as well go for all of it. In that case, I would find myself, with my colleagues, voting for new Clause 1. If that were carried, we could withdraw new Clause 5. If it failed, we could still, with the permission of the Chair, press a vote on new Clause 5.

I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept new Clause 5 in the spirit of compromise which is so desperately necessary in industrial relations.

Mr. Foot

The hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) struck an extremely harmonious note at the beginning of the debate. He knows that it would be against my nature and interest to reply in anything other than that tone and, of course, I intend to observe that rule throughout all our proceedings. It comes quite naturally to me. Therefore, I am very glad to approach the whole question in the same constructive spirit that has been suggested, partly by the hon. Gentleman and partly by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith). It may be that, as I proceed on these new clauses and other amendments, the keener Members of the House will be able to detect a difference in the ways that I suggest we should deal with our problems, but that does not make the slightest difference to the emollient spirit in which I approach the whole matter.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to our references to the employment protection Bill. I shall say something further about that shortly, because it touches upon our argument on the whole of this matter. It certainly touches upon the new clauses. It also touches upon later amendments and discussions. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the decision to divide the way in which we had to deal with these industrial relations problems into two Bills was an important decision that we had to make.

Partly because of the parliamentary exigencies in this Parliament, we had to produce a much shorter Bill than might otherwise have been the case. Indeed, it had been part of our original intention, before the General Election, that we would have had a Bill which repealed the 1971 Act and carried through the purposes that we wished to achieve in that sense and, at the same time, proceed to establish the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which we believe will play an extremely important part in the whole of our industrial relations and is part of our constructive approach to the whole problem. Therefore, one of the main features in the employment protection Bill will be the measures that are required to give statutory form to that service.

I hope, therefore, that hon. Members, whatever they may think about this Bill or the way in which we are proceeding with this matter, will not imagine that there is anything false or misleading in our suggestion that we regard the employment protection Bill as a proper place to deal with many of the problems that we think are left over from this Bill. That applies not only to problems which we have left over and have not dealt with in this Bill, which may be regarded as concessions to the trade unions—if that is the way to put it—but also to prob lems which others have asked us not to proceed with in this Bill and which we have agreed should be left to the subsequent Bill, for which we shall have, perhaps, a longer time in the House to discuss matters.

Therefore, when I refer later to the employment protection Bill, in this or later debates, I hope that hon. Members will not think that it is any method of trying to pass the buck, to conceal the facts, or to escape from problems. This is a perfectly reputable procedure that we have followed because of the requirements of the case, and we believe that it is a sensible arrangement.

I say particularly to the hon. Member for Rochdale, who is interested in establishing a constructive approach to industrial relations, that we do not regard this Bill as one which deals with the whole range of these matters. That would have been impossible. We shall be here for a little while tonight. We may finish the whole Bill tonight or in a little more time this week. But if we attempted to deal with all these problems at once in this Parliament, in the time available, we could have been confronted with insoluble parliamentary problems.

Mr. Hayhoe

Will the Secretary of State address his mind to the particular point that he has framed this Bill in such a way that there is no break in the immunities and safeguards for the strong unions whereas there is a break in the protection and safeguards for weak individuals?

Mr. Foot

I do not think that is so. In any case, that would raise very controversial matters, which I am seeking to avoid. The hon. Gentleman talks of immunities and protections. It is not a question of immunities and protections only for the strong. It is immunities and protections in many cases for the weak, who have protections only because they are able to organise in trade unions. Whether they are big or small trade unions, they are the best protections for the weak in many circumstances. Whatever may be the differences between us on various aspects of the matter, everyone will agree that it would have been a complete nonsense for us to introduce a Bill which merely repealed the 1971 Act without dealing with the question of immunities and protections for the trade unions generally. That would have made nonsense of the whole process, so that was not an option that was available to US.

I come to the new clauses. Certainly I do not deny that this question is important. I did not have to put it in perspective in that sense. The hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth did so when he said that this matter applies only to a very small number of cases and that it is very rare that events occur which would invoke this kind of clause if it were to become law. That is perfectly true, but that does not mean that it is not important, and therefore, right from the beginning, as he correctly recited, the Government have said that they wish to deal with this problem and would deal with it either in this Bill or in the later Bill. I am not seeking to deny that this is a matter to which the House should apply its mind. That is what we are doing here on Report.

There are, however, deficiencies in the clause moved by the official Opposition and I shall briefly state what I think those deficiencies to be, not in order to exacerbate the argument, but just to ensure that it is understood what we feel about it. I do not need to recite the list of deficiencies fully because we went into these matters in detail in Committee

5.0 p.m.

First, we do not think that the clause is justified by the arguments of Donovan, because the clause covers a good deal more than Donovan was seeking to deal with by his remedy in such cases Donovan was dealing overwhelmingly, but not exclusively, with the closed-shop situation and he was seeking what he considered might be a remedy for this difficulty in such a situation. The Opposition clause goes further than that, however.

The second reason for not liking the clause is that it does not take full account of the procedures of the trade unions. I am not saying that it would be impossible for the clause to be operated at the same time that the trade unions operate their procedures for dealing with these matters, but the clause does not take proper account of the trade union procedures which deal exactly with this problem. We believe that to be an essential part of trying to secure a solution.

The clause also does not take proper account of the developments since Donovan and of the efforts which the trade unions have made to take account of the kind of criticisms or discussions that took place in Donovan on this subject. It was partly as a response to Donovan that the General Council of the TUC had discussions with the various member unions. There was a considerable exchange of opinion on the subject and, of course, many of the matters dealt with in the Liberal clause are covered by the procedures which the trade unions laid down for preserving the rights of members and for appeals.

Our principal objection, however, is that the remedy which is provided is unsatisfactory and could lead to difficulties. The whole idea of introducing the operation of injunctions could well exacerbate a situation which need not be exacerbated. It is therefore unwise to try to solve the problem by resorting to the same tribunals that deal with these other matters, and by the invocation of injunctions and the possibility of clashes of that nature. We do not believe that is the best way of dealing with it.

Sir Raymond Gower

The Secretary of State has made a fair point in saying that many unions try to do this in their general practice and therefore that the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) are not necessary. Does he take the same view about company law, that because most companies behave reasonably and try to do the right thing there is therefore no need for any company legislation?

Mr. Foot

I do not argue that my point is the complete answer to the question, but one of the three or four reasons why the clause is unsatisfactory is that it does not take sufficient account of the remedies which the unions operate and which they have been seeking to improve. My argument does not involve the implication the hon. Member is trying to place upon it. For those reasons, therefore, the clause moved by the official Opposition is deficient for dealing with what we have all agreed is a problem.

I agree that the clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale is an improvement on that proposed by the official Opposition, if I may say that without offence in these coalition days. Not only is the hon. Member's clause an improvement in that respect, but it is an improvement on what he proposed in Committee. I acknowledge that he has certainly sought to take account of the discussions we had then and to make two alterations. One of the alterations is to seek to make the clause apply only to a closed shop operation, although I do not think he has quite succeeded in that respect because parts of the clause apply while other parts do not. That is a minor deficiency.

There is another change, however, perhaps resulting from the criticisms which he encountered in Committee. Originally he proposed that any breach of the rules he was laying down should be dealt with by resort to the criminal court. I do not think that was what he intended. He has therefore removed from his clause the remedy or sanction of a reference to the criminal courts, but in so doing he has removed any sanction at all. He has emasculated the clause to such a degree that it has become almost entirely sexless. Now it would have no binding effect in any way whatever. He might suggest that in that case we should just let it go into the Bill. Of course, we could elaborate the Bill with a whole series of general declarations of biased aspirations. That is a possibility. That would fill out the Bill considerably, but that is clearly not the way to legislate.

I hope the hon. Member will take my reply as the response he was hoping for, and I agree that perhaps the best way of dealing with the matter would be to omit from the Bill completely any provisions to cover the point, and instead to incorporate some form of code of practice in the subsequent employment protection Bill. The hon. Member is in effect proposing that there should be a general statement of the ways in which certain matters should be dealt with without there being any legal sanction attached, and that is certainly one of the propositions that the Government will be glad to consider in seeking a remedy.

So, it would be a mistake for the House to incorporate the hon. Member's clause for the reasons I have stated, and the answer may well lie in a code of practice embodied in the later Bill.

Now I come to the way in which the Government have always—

Mr. Brittan

Would the Secretary of State accept that there is at least a possibility that the Liberal Party's clause in its statutory form, as opposed to any code of practice in which it might be incorporated, might be thought to provide some remedy in that if there is a clear statement in a statute that a member of a union shall be given this or shall not be given that, the courts might be prepared to intervene by giving injunctive relief if there has been a breach of statute?

Mr. Foot

If that were true it would be open to some of the objections I have stated, but it is not the case. If it were the case it would be an added reason not to include the clause and a reason why the Liberals should not press the matter.

We believe that the problem involved here is a genuine one. At one stage, and it is still not excluded, we thought that the best way to deal with it would be to devise a clause roughly on the basis of the Donovan recommendation—that is a clause dealing exclusively with the closed shop situation, to provide not an appeal to the courts in the normal manner, or an appeal to a tribunal, as recommended in the clause, or indeed any appeal as implied in the Liberal's remedy, but rather the establishment of a special review body for the purpose, At one time we thought that that might be the most feasible way to deal with the matter.

However, the General Council of the TUC has put forward objections which derive partly from its general objection to surveillance over its rules, which is a natural feeling. On the other hand, the General Council wishes to bring its rules as much as possible into conformity with the general recommendations in Donovan for dealing with this and many other matters. The General Council has taken a whole series of steps to try to achieve this.

I believe that a remedy for dealing with this situation which has general accord with the TUC is a much better remedy than one imposed upon it, even by Parliament, and that is what I have been seeking. If we had secured a remedy which the TUC believed was a satisfactory way to deal with it, we would have done our best to bring it forward in the Bill, but we have not yet secured that remedy.

One way to achieve the objective might be not the remedy which I have mentioned of the adaptation of the Donovan recommendation, but a form of code of practice related to it which could be included in the employment protection Bill, particularly if such an arrangement were to be secured by understanding and agreement rather than by imposing a solution which the unions, or some of them, might not regard as the best way to go about it. This is not a question of refusing to take any course which the General Council of the TUC may not wish to take, but rather of seeking to provide the best remedy for the situation, and a remedy which will work. That is what we have been trying to secure. We have spent many hours in discussions with people concerned, including other Ministers, and I hope the House will think that we are making a sensible approach.

Hon. Members may ask what happens in the meantime, between now and the passage of the employment protection Bill, when we may have the conclusion of the kind of arrangement about which I have talked, whether in legislative form as suggested by Donovan, or in a code of practice, as suggested by the Liberal Party. It is conceivable that there may be some cases in which injustice is done and in which there would not be a remedy. I do not deny that, although it is not the case that there is no remedy available. Indeed, the remedy which is available, which has been available before and which trade unions and their members have used persistently over the years, is that of an appeal to the High Court against a breach of natural justice.

5.15 p.m.

Anyone who reads the history of trade unions, not just over recent years but over a longer period, cannot fail to be struck by the fact that the High Court has, quite properly in my humble judgment. a high reputation with the trade unions. Trade unions have fully accepted judgments of the High Court and indeed some of their problems have been solved there. Trade unions have taken the view that they do not want to interfere with that process, whereas the Donovan proposal, to some extent, would interfere with it. That is one difficulty which must be considered if the Donovan proposal, in its present form, is to go ahead. It would in certain circumstances interfere with the appeal by certain members of trade unions to the High Court, and with the way that appeal may have been exercised in the past.

I do not want to say anything controversial, but one difficulty of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 is that we feel that the kind of court which it set up injured the reputation of the law among many trade unionists. I think I have put that as moderately as possible. However, the High Court would be there to deal with some of these cases with which we are concerned if they arose. That would be one protection not for the whole position, but a protection which prevailed previously, which was frequently used when there were injustices and which, as the history of trade unions has shown, helped to remedy those injustices.

I hope that the House will be prepared to accept what we have proposed as being a sensible way of proceeding. I hope it will be convenient and indeed attractive to hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw their clause so that we can proceed in the way I have suggested. [Interruption.] I do not know why that should not be regarded as agreeable. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is laughing at the prospect of our agreeing on these matters so speedily. I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman in his usual buoyant mood.

I suggest that we could go ahead and have discussions and deal with the matter in the employment protection Bill as I have described.

I hope that the Liberal Party spokesman, whatever the official Opposition may decide, will understand that I have made a constructive response to his suggestion. I hope that he will not be tempted into voting for the Opposition's clause if they are so unwise as to press it to a Division. He would not be achieving what he wishes to secure—that is, an agreed understanding as to how we can deal with this problem in the best interests of the trade union movement generally and in the best interests of those rare individuals who may find themselves clashing with the ways in which trade unions operate in this country.

I believe that what the Government are proposing is best not only in the interests of trade unionism but also in protecting individual liberty in this country.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

The Secretary of State has again beguiled us, as he did so often in Committee with promises of what might appear in the employment protection Bill. When that Bill comes before the House it may well contain everything that he and the Minister of State have spoken about. The difficulty is that we have before us a Bill which is said to repeal the 1971 Act when it does nothing of the sort, because it immediately re-enacts about 26 of the sections of that Act. But, then, that is for Mr. Scanlon's information only.

The important point is that the Bill takes away any possibility of independent control of the rules of trade unions. When the Bill becomes an Act, therefore, we immediately return to a situation in which any trade union decides what its rules will be without any control or intervention by any other body. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches may say "This is a perfect situation. Let us leave it to the trade unions to decide for themselves."

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the TUC's attitude. We all know that the TUC is a very responsible body that seeks to make certain that the trade unions are governed by the best possible conventions that can be found by agreement. The difficulty is that there are gaps, so that, with the best will in the world, the TUC does not have the necessary amount of control to make certain that the interests of the individual are properly looked after. That is the important matter with which we must be concerned.

Both the new clauses are concerned with the rights of the individual, and they are both reasonably worded. Under the controls of the 1971 Act there is an independent person who can at least make certain that a trade union conducts itself properly. Now he will go. All that is said in both clauses is that individual workers will be treated reasonably on the question whether they will be accepted as members, and on the method by which they may be expelled from membership.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) made it clear that as a result of the reply he received from the Secretary of State in Committee his clause confines itself to a closed shop situation. Therefore, he narrows the field in that he accepts, and I think the whole House will accept, that to be expelled from membership of a union can be much more damaging where there is a closed shop. In certain industries expulsion from a union means that a man may just as well throw away his tools and find another job in a different craft. Therefore, I can see the point the hon. Gentleman makes, that in the closed shop situation it is important that there should be some protection for the individual who seeks membership of a union and also a provision to prevent his being unfairly expelled.

In his intervention in this debate the Secretary of State said that the hon. Gentleman had proved that the clause would be impotent in its operation, that it only mouths a number of phrases with which most people would agree, but gets one nowhere. But, then, is not that Liberal policy generally? Therefore, we cannot complain about that.

Our clause is concerned with a new situation in which the Bill takes away any control by any outside body of a trade union in deciding what its rules shall be. Once that is done, it is important to have proper protection for the individual union member to make certain that only where he is properly found guilty of a breach of union rules may he be in danger of expulsion as a result of which he might even lose his livelihood.

In these matters one obviously cannot continue to talk just about cases that have happened. All that I have to do is to repeat my experiences in my union before 1971. In the pre-1971 situation a trade union could register with the Registrar of Friendly Societies purely by handing over a copy of its rules and from time to time notifying changes in those rules.

My union announced in public that it would make a big contribution to support those in Cyprus who were operating against our troops. I made a statement to the Daily Mail that I thought that was damaging to members of the unions whose sons were doing National Service in Cyprus. I was told that my case would be taken before the executive committee. I could put forward my written defence, but I could not appear. I did not know who was charging me, and I could not cross-question those charging me. At the end of the day I was notified that the committee had heard my case in my absence, which was, apparently, quite normal under the union's rules. The committee had taken into consideration my written points and made a decision, and that was it. I was a Member of Parliament at the time, and I should not have been worried very much if I had been expelled rather than admonished, but many other union members could have been considerably damaged by expulsion and could have lost their livelihood.

That is a personal example of what can happen. It can happen now when by this Bill we are repealing the parts of the 1971 Act that at least made certain that an independent registrar could require that the rules of each union conformed to proper standards. We are repealing all that, and, therefore, I believe that the House would be failing the nation and every individual member of every trade union in the land if it did not pass new Clause 1.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am interrupting the business of the House so that the record may be corrected. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that earlier when the House was discussing the availability of papers for various Committees I asked the Minister of State, Civil Service Department about the availability of Standing Committee reports for the Control of Pollution Bill, making the point that it was impossible for Members interested in that Bill to prepare for Report.

The Minister informed the House that two reports of that Committee's proceedings had been published and were available for hon. Members. I found that statement rather strange because I, as a member of the Committee, had not up to that moment received the customary copies that members of Standing Committees receive. I did not wish to contradict the Minister, but I subsequently checked and found that there were no copies immediately available in the Vote Office.

I now find that two of the reports appeared in the Vote Office for the first time at five o'clock. Therefore, the statement which was made by the Minister earlier this afternoon was not correct. Further, the Bill as amended by the Committee, has not yet been printed and is not yet available so hon. Members do not know how the Bill has been amended by the Committee.

Mr. Foot

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it proper that we should have the proceedings of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill interrupted on a point of order that is concerned with another Bill? Of course, we appreciate the difficulties that have arisen for the hon. Gentleman and for other hon. Members, but there are times made available to the House when these matters should be raised. If a point of order of this nature is to be accepted it seems that a lot of our proceedings will become very disorderly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Before the debate continues I shall reply to the two points of order that have been raised. This is a rather irregular procedure but I allowed it because of the general difficulty which has arisen about the printing of papers. I do not wish this practice to become a general rule.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon)

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) points out that he understood that copies of the proceedings in Committee of the Control of Pollution Bill were available for the House. It is true that they were available for the House but when I made my earlier statement they were not actually in the House. I regret that I was under the impression that transport would be more rapid than it was. The hon. Member for Hornsey must realise that the Vote Office cannot as easily cope with the large bulk of the present arrangements as it could if our papers were printed. Copies of the Committee proceedings of the Control of Pollution Bill were available for the House and they are now available in the Vote Office. I must apologise for any inconvenience that has been caused.

Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

I shall comment on the three principal points of difficulty that the Secretary of State has found with new Clause 1. I shall leave the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on new Clause 5.

First, the Secretary of State said that he finds difficulty with new Clause I because it is drawn wider than the recommendations in the Donovan Report. I draw his attention to the considerable section in the Donovan Report from paragraph 619 onwards which devotes a considerable amount of the report to the consideration of safeguards which are necessary for the individuals outside a closed shop situation. Donovan does not recognise that injustices to the individual can take place only within a closed shop.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the significance of the new clause is in a closed shop situation. There is no great danger to a person's livelihood—for example, the threat of arbitrary dismissal—except in a closed shop situation. Therefore, the main burden of the new clause relates to a closed shop situation. It is somewhat flimsy to say that there can be significant objection to the new clause because it does not relate only to a closed shop situation. As I have said, that must be the burden of the new clause.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has said that the new clause does not take sufficient account of existing procdures to deal with unfair practice against individuals that trade unions already possess. It is fairly evident—and completely evident from the new clause—that the existing procedures of trade unions are in no way precluded from operating by the adoption of the new clause. There would be no incompatibility with the existing procedures of trade unions arising from the adoption of new Clause 1 or new Clause 5. The main point that I put to the right hon. Gentleman is that as long as individuals rest solely and totally on the protection offered by procedures already adopted by trade unions, we are continuing a situation in which ultimately the trade unions themselves are judge and jury in their own case. That is a matter of principle that is undesirable and it is that point of principle that we are seeking to correct.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was undesirable in principle that there should be a reference in the new clause to resort having to be made to injunctions. That is a fairly technical objection, not least because there can be recourse to an injunction only once it is clear that a trade union, within a given time, has not implemented a decision that has been made by an industrial tribunal. Effectively there is recourse to an injunction only when it is clear that a trade union will not abide by the resolution of the body set up by statute to arbitrate.

I suggest on all three counts that the right hon. Gentleman's objections to new Clause 1 and new Clause 5 seem to be flimsy. On the basic point of principle, we agreed in Standing Committee to enshrine in legislation the principle of the closed shop. By doing that we conferred on trade unions a major degree of authority and power over individuals where their livelihood is most acutely affected. By accepting the principle of the closed shop we give the trade unions the right to deny employment in a particular place of work to an individual and the right to deny continued employment in a particular place of work.

The right hon. Gentleman has already conceded that there could be circumstances—it is accepted that such circumstances would rarely arise—in which trade unions could operate unfairly, arbitrarily and unjustly. I put to the right hon. Gentleman that as long as he refuses to accept the new clause and as long as he concedes that injustice can occur, he is creating a situation in legislation in which somebody can be arbitrarily denied the right to gain admission to his place of work. That is a matter that this House cannot allow to continue to take place—even though it may take place in a minority of situations and even though it is highly improbable that such an event will take place.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I have long wondered about the magical powers possessed by the Dispatch Box. It does the most remarkable things for all kinds of people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

And for you.

Mr. Peyton

I am so much obliged to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his applause.

The Secretary of State is no exception. This afternoon we listened to him in a strangely honeyed mood. Normally we are accustomed to listening to the right hon. Gentleman with some pleasure, but he usually employs more rasping tones than he saw fit to use this afternoon. However the change was welcome. I particularly welcomed the gracious and honeyed comments he made about our difficulties with parliamentary papers.

I never thought I would see the day when I complained about a shortage of paper in this place. I do so now only with the feeling that there is a slight element of hypocrisy in such protests. We must, at least, be partially grateful that the tide of paper by which we are normally inundated is slightly checked, even though it he the result of unwelcome circumstances. One Labour Member went a little far when he said that Parliament depended upon the consent of the ordinary working man. That is true, but Parliament depends upon the consent of all the people, not just one or two. It is a pity that our procedures should be upset.

I welcomed the gentle and gracious approach of the right hon. Gentleman who, uncharacteristically, avoided controversy and recognised that we are still dwelling in coalition days. The one thing on which he and I would agree most cordially—[Interruption.]—is that a coalition seems to be highly unlikely because there is very little to agree about. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman referred—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) wishes to interrupt me I hope that he will do so. His constant groaning from a sedentary position does him little credit and will only prolong any pain I may currently be causing him.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I was directing a sedentary remark to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Peyton

I am certain that the hon. Member for Rochdale would be the last to feel himself in any way inconvenienced if the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston were to suggest that such communications were to go on outside the Chamber.

I was surprised and interested by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the possibility of using the code of practice device. If Parliament is to pass laws it had better do so quite clearly instead of casting a rather bogus fly over the water to see what happens. We should be capable of making up our minds without distributing codes of practice which simply add to the modern tide of advice which is already wide enough. I would have thought that by this time the House was sharply aware of the prospects which such advice could normally be expected to enjoy.

5.45 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman's main point was that the TUC objected to any surveillance of its affairs. That seems to be in strange contrast to the kind of treatment meted out to every other section of the community. One of the questions which bedevils—[Interruption.]—industrial relations is just what power the TUC has. Does it have the power to deliver things, to carry out promises—I am sorry. If the Secretary of State wishes to address his hon. Friend I am prepared to pause until the conversation has finished.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he goes on like this he will not hurry me one bit. All he will do is to prolong my remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps stick to the main theme of his speech. I am sure that the House will listen to it.

Mr. Peyton

I hope that you were able to hear what the hon. Gentleman was contributing just now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will he heard in silence.

Mr. Peyton

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to look after myself without worrying the Chair by any requests for protection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I will protect the right hon. Gentleman when necessary.

Mr. Peyton

Perhaps I could have the Secretary of State's attention. The second point which worries me about the whole question of industrial relations is the lack of power which the TUC has over the trade unions. The third point is that we must find something which will work. There is a great danger in this complex area in our looking for something which will satisfy appearances but which will do nothing useful in practice.

As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman in his thoughtful remarks raised no objection in detail to the clause. In the absence of such objection I cannot see why the Government find the clause deeply objectionable. It seems that the one thing we particularly require is some clear provision governing trade union elections. There has been a great deal of unease on this subject and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, either now or later, will be able to reassure us that he will not allow his attention to be diverted from this important point. It is not an adequate answer to say that the trade union movement objects to surveillance.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

I know that there are other hon. and right hon. Members who want to speak on the principle of the clause. I hope it will be convenient if I make one or two observations now on the technical points made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the Secretary of State. The hon. Member said that his purpose was to ensure adequate safeguards for the individual. He will know that this is precisely the line we have adopted in Committee.

The more we accept that, as a question of fact and/or law, the closed shop, particularly the post-entry closed shop, is a reality, the more important it becomes to take every available step to safeguard the rights of the individual. It is necessary to do something, not just to talk about it. The hon. Member has been wholly consistent in supporting anything of ours which was right in this context although he did not support us in other things when he felt that they would not achieve their objective. I was glad to hear him say that in pursuance of that consistent policy he and his colleagues will vote with us.

He is right to say that there is a difference between this clause and new clause 5. What we are talking about happens almost naturally in the context of the closed shop. That is no reason for limiting what we have in the clause to the closed shop. Occasions when injustices cannot happen outside the closed shop may be very few but it is desirable that they should be covered too. The hon. Member appreciates that our clause has that effect and, I hope he will think on reflection, that merit.

The hon. Gentleman said that new Clause 5 has no remedies built into it, and that is undeniable, but I hope that he will not feel in that respect that it is unworthy of the support which he promised.

The Secretary of State is probably right in saying that not every word of the clause is justified by Donovan. So what? It is in the spirit of Donovan. The right hon. Gentleman has made many pronouncements much more recently than Donovan to the effect that he wants to provide a remedy for the person, rare as he may be, who suffers by arbitrary exclusion or expulsion. He has spoken in terms which seemed to hold out a promise of doing that by legislation. The House will be disappointed to learn that the Secretary of State appears to have given up the attempt to legislate and proposes instead a code of practice.

Mr. Foot

I am not necessarily saying that. I am suggesting that the best way to deal with it may be through legislation. That is what I meant when I said on previous occasions and repeated today that the most feasible way might be on the basis of the Donovan recommendation. That would involve legislation.

Another possibility, suggested by the Liberal Party spokesman, is that it could be dealt with by a code of practice. The code of practice could be included in legislation even if it did not contain any sanctions. It would be a good idea—and is consistent with what I have said all along—to have discussions with the TUC General Council to see which is the best remedy and the best way to solve this problem. That does not exclude legislation. If we could not arrive at a better solution by another method, we should have to do it by legislation.

Mr. Percival

If I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise. I am not sure from his intervention whether I did misunderstand him. He seemed to be accepting the possibility that there might be provisions in the nature of a code of practice with no sanctions attached. That suggestion does not satisfy us. We are concerned not just about picketing, because in certain circumstances it is right. Whatever form this takes it is essential that there should be some sanctions or, more particularly, some remedies. We are seeking remedies rather than sanctions. We seek sanctions to the extent that we want to protect the individual, but we also seek remedies for him

The Secretary of State said that the clause did not take fully into account trade union procedures. That suggests that he has not quite understood the format of the sanctions or remedies. This is a three-stage remedy. First, the question whether the exclusion or expulsion was arbitrary goes to an industrial tribunal. All the expertise of the members of the tribunal is brought to bear on that difficult question. I think the right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the right approach is to make the provisions of the clause general and to leave it to the expertise of the industrial tribunal.

What the right hon. Gentleman probably has in mind about trade union procedures is that some unions provide for an appeal to the executive or governing body of the union if a branch turns down an application. That must be what he means when he says that the clause does not allow for trade union procedures. But it does. The industrial tribunal will be composed of people who know all about those procedures. If certain internal procedures were available to the individual the tribunal would tell him to go away and to pursue that appeal. The tribunal might even say something that would be useful in producing a satisfactory outcome. The tribunal would tell the individual to exhaust his remedies and then come back. That is stage one.

The second stage is that the application is either dismissed or declared. That allows for a period for the union to reconsider its position in the light of everything that has been said at the hearing and to decide what course to take. It gives another opportunity to both parties to consider what has been said and to arrive at an agreed solution.

The third stage of this three-part remedy is, if all else fails, for the person who has suffered to go to the High Court. The right hon. Gentleman referred to injunctive remedies. Courts do not lightly grant injunctions. An injunction might be the only remedy, but courts regard injunctions as the last step, as a remedy to be used when there is no other that will meet the case.

The clause gives the court the widest discretion so that it may do what is just and equitable. It is not a valid criticism to say that we have not allowed for existing trade union procedures or that the remedies are of the wrong kind.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we have not taken sufficient account of what has happened since Donovan. Nothing has happened. We have had six years of discussion. The TUC published a pamphlet called "Action on Donovan" in which it was said that the Donovan proposals in this respect were acceptable to the TUC. I do not mean to imply that nothing has been done by the TUC. There have been discussions amongst members of the TUC and its constituent bodies and between the TUC and the Secretary of State, but nothing has emerged from them. Nothing has been done in the sense that the position in law is exactly as it then was. If someone suffers injustice, he still has no remedy. We feel that the time has come to do something and to provide a remedy.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the common law remedies based on natural justice were adequate. That is contrary to what he and his hon. Friend said in Committee, which was that there were some rights but they were rather limited.

I ask the Secretary of State to remember the Faramus case in which a man was thrown out of a closed shop industry because of two minor convictions years before when he was under 20 and in enemy-occupied territory. The common law rights are so limited that the common law could not protect him, and most people would agree that the man suffered injustice. The case went to the House of Lords and it was decided that the common law powers of the judges were not wide enough to give a remedy—a remedy which the courts, and I am sure most hon. Members, would like to have. I am limiting myself to the technical reason but I hope this meets some of the points made by the Secretary of State for Employment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

Perhaps I may reinforce my hon. and learned Friend's point by mentioning a constituent who found himself in a somewhat similar position necessitating an application to the High Court. It was an expensive matter and it was only because of the generosity of Daily Telegraph readers that he was enabled to go to the High Court to get justice. There are many such cases, and it should surely not be left to the generosity of newspaper readers for a man to be able to take the case to appeal.

Mr. Percival

My hon. Friend raises a practical point, and it is another respect in which the remedies that we are seeking to provide are likely to be so much more practical and more readily available, since the industrial tribunal procedure is so well known to millions of trade unionists and others. The first step will be easy and cheap and may well resolve the matter. After that the steps are equally simple. My hon. Friend's intervention strengthens the argument and I hope that it will help to persuade the Secretary of State to come to the view that our case is a very strong one.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

The majority of hon. Members will be disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment was so firm in rejecting our new Clause 1 and new Clause 5 put forward by the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman took a record amount of time, some 20 to 25 minutes, to say "No", although he did so in a nice but firm way. At the beginning of the Report stage of the Bill it is not a very promising start or a very good augury for what may lie ahead in the next two days.

Conservatives fully supported the Conservative Government two or three years ago when we introduced the Industrial Relations Bill. We now recognise, after a trial of time, that a few amendments and sensible alterations are needed to the Act. The new clause, which makes minor alterations to the Bill, but which is a matter of great importance to workers, has met with a complete refusal and stonewalling on the part of the Secretary of State. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State is being so stubborn on this simple clause.

The effect of the clause is to ease the lot of employees in the closed shop industry who will be in a difficult situation. If the worker is not in a closed shop industry, then the failure by the Government to accept the clause will not matter so much, but if he is in such an industry then exclusion from his union virtually will mean exclusion from his job. There are a number of closed shop industries and companies in the United Kingdom, and I doubt whether anybody in the House thinks it right that a trade union official should have the power to make a life or death decision in respect of a closed shop industry. If the clause is not accepted, a number of employees in closed shop industries will be placed in grave difficulties.

At present many public utilities, such as the railways, have a closed shop situation. If the clause is not accepted by the Government, then a worker who loses his job in such an industry will have to leave that industry completely and perhaps accept a lesser job for which he has not been trained. He will have to face a reduction in his standard of living, and of course it will affect his family. We regard this state of affairs as very wrong.

I was concerned to hear the Secretary of State say that probably one of the best ways to deal with this question was not by legislation but by leaving matters to the TUC. I do not think the nation as a whole wants to see any more sharing of Government by the TUC than is the situation at present. I think that an early election will indicate that most people in the country already believe that the TUC has far too big a say in the running of the nation. As for asking the TUC for its advice on the clause, I believe that would be unwise since it is hardly likely that the TUC would recommend a provision which seeks to curb and restrain the already overwhelming power and strong position of many trade unionists.

I wish to support new Clause 1 since it involves an important point of principle. It would not mean much to the Government if they were to give way on this matter, but it would certainly mean that a large number of trade unionists who find themselves in grave jeopardy would be assisted.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

I should like to ask a question on subsection (4) of new Clause 1, and I hope that it will be answered either by my own Front Bench or by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment. This relates to the sort of tragedy which could happen when workers try to take these important matters to a court of law.

Subsection (4) deals with what a worker may do if a declaration by an industrial tribunal allowing him to become a member of a union is ignored. It assumes that once the worker has received the declaration from the industrial tribunal he will be a member of the union and, if no action is taken by the union, the worker can apply for an injunction to the High Court or to the Court of Sesison in Scotland. It may be that a worker who receives a declaration from an industrial tribunal may not bother to pursue the matter further. I am talking of a particular case in the past where a man was excluded from a union, went to a different job and in the end threw in the towel.

I am wondering whether, under the new clause, it will be open to the trade union to make application to the High Court to set aside the declaration of the industrial tribunal if the individual worker does not contest it in the High Court. Obviously, it should be open to the trade union to apply for the declaration to be set aside in those circumstances. I do not think that it would do industrial relations any good in any area of the country if a trade union had such a declaration hanging over its head and no further action was taken by the worker under subsection (4). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) may be able to clear up this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittany said that he hoped trade unionists would play an active part in the industrial tribunals. I see certain difficulties here. The clause refers to "appropriate qualifications" for membership of a particular union. In this connection, we shall be imposing great responsibilities on the industrial tri bunals as new processes come about and when mergers take place between unions. There may be strong arguments about whether a newly-created union should take into its ranks people whom, before the merger, it would not have considered qualified for membership. That point, too, can be answered if the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby is realised and trade unionists play an active part in industrial tribunals.

The Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid a situation where individual workers went to the courts so that injunctions were flying round and a great many strikes and stoppages resulted. I hope that there is the closest contact between the conciliation and arbitration service and the industrial tribunals and that, if an industrial tribunal makes a declaration under the clause and it looks as if there will be trouble, automatically the conciliation and arbitration service will intervene to see that the individual worker is encouraged to carry out the provisions of subsection (4). If the conciliation and arbitration service does that, it will meet the point made by toe Secretary of State. It will avoid the necessity of going to the High Court, and the matter will be able to be solved by the new service, which we all wish well, since we all want to see an improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that we who served on the Standing Committee tried to approach the Bill in a constructive spirit, and that our proceedings in Committee were remarkably free of acrimony. However, it was my hope that the Secretary of State would start this Report stage by being a little more conciliatory and by admitting that it is very important for hon. Members to pay regard not only to the rights of the trade unions but to those of individuals.

The Secretary of State conceded in Committee, and he has conceded it again today, that there should be some protection against arbitrary exclusion from a union of which a man has to be a member if he wishes to follow his occupation. All that we have been arguing about is how that protection can best be achieved.

I was astonished by some of the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State. First, he said that the employment protection Bill that he proposed to bring forward in due course might well be the best vehicle to provide this protection, since that would give the House more time to discuss this vital matter. In Committee, although the right hon. Gentleman was always very polite, he did not hesitate to make it plain that he thought that we had all had more than enough time to discuss these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman then said that the High Court could provide a remedy in many cases. It is very strange to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that in view of his strictures and abuse of Sir John Donaldson, a most eminent High Court judge—strictures of which I hope he is now somewhat ashamed.

6.15 p.m.

I do not refer just to the case of Faramus, mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). I remind hon. Members of the case of Rookes v. Barnard. That was not a case of wrongful exclusion, but it involved the rights of the individual. The plaintiff had to fight through the court of first instance, through the Court of Appeal and right to the House of Lords at enormous expense in order to get his rights. It is no credit to Government supporters that, as soon as they got hack to power in 1965, they decided to deny those rights to anyone else.

That is not an example of how the ordinary man can use the courts to get a remedy. It is very expensive to go through all these procedures. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's apparent dislike of the law and lawyers, I was surprised to hear him say that the individual who was wrongfully excluded from a union could always use the ordinary machinery of the courts.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that sufficient account had not been taken of the remedies already provided by unions and of the action taken by the TUC to see that unions provided these remedies. I should be happier with his argument if he had said that all unions provided a proper appeal procedure when a man was wrongfully excluded. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot say that. Since he cannot say it, we must look for some other way of providing that protection for the individual.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members must be aware of the natural objection of the TUC and of unions to the surveillance of their rules. That was one of the most depressing remarks that I have heard for a long time. It shows that the right hon. Gentleman still has no real understanding of the great damage which can be done to individuals and the real abuse of human rights which can be involved in unions not having rules which allow proper appeal procedures. It is very disappointing, if not shocking, that after all this time the right hon. Gentleman should say that it is not all that important to provide a proper framework of procedures whereby a man can get a remedy if he is wrongfully excluded from a union which he needs to join if he is to follow his occupation because the TUC has a natural objection to anyone surveying trade union rules. This cannot be right, and I hope even at this late stage that the right hon. Gentleman will think about it again.

The clause is a modest proposal which should be acceptable to any right thinking person.

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

I hope that the Secretary of State will now respond to the plea made by the Opposition to think again about this matter and to accept our new clause. After all, it is a very reasonable clause. The right hon. Gentleman has approached this debate so far in a conciliatory and quiet manner. It is unusual for him to do so, but he has done so on this occasion, and we wish to respond in a similar manner.

By this new clause, we seek to write into the Bill certain amendments which will enable this measure to become the foundation of the law on industrial relations. We think that it should be as satisfactory as possible in its principles and complete in its details, leaving as little as possible to be settled in future legislation that the Government propose. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach these two days on Report.

The new clause seeks to provide safeguards for the individual against arbitrary or unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a union. Where a worker is aggrieved by his expulsion or exclusion, he may apply to an industrial tribunal for a remedy.

Although the clause can stand by itself as a protection of the rights of individuals, the House will know that the definition of arbitrariness and unreasonableness is spelt out in subsections (10) to (13) of new Clause 2, to which we shall proceed in a few moments.

There is a wide area of common ground between all parties in the House on the principle which underlies this clause. There are three stages in the remedy. There is, first, the application to the industrial tribunal. We would hope to have at least one member of a trade union siting as part of the industrial tribunal. Cases would be heard in front of knowledgeable people who know the procedures of trade unions and who would take that into account.

There would then be a chance of further conciliation and, after that, consideration. Then there is the last stage of the remedy, which is the application to the High Court. No one can object to that sort of framework.

The right hon. Gentleman says that our remedy is wrong, that it would be much better if this could be done outside the law. I think that if there were an effective way of doing it outside the law, we would much prefer to see that happen. I sometimes wonder why it is that there should be an objection to cases, which are not very frequent, being heard within the law. The rest of us have to abide by the law. I would have thought in this case that it was not asking a great deal for the trade unions also to have to abide by a framework of law.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would like further time to consider this and perhaps to include the provision in a code of practice, or perhaps in a code of practice of a later Bill. If he finds that there is a satisfactory way of doing this at a later stage within another Bill, then let him put it in that Bill. Let him then move to amend this Bill accordingly.

I do not think we should pass to a situation in which the closed shop provisions operate in this Bill but in which there is a period before anything comes into operation to help the individual. If we do not protect the rights of the individual in this House there is no one else to protect them.

There is a logical interdependence between the two principles of the institution of the closed shop and the protection of individuals from unreasonable treatment by unions in closed shop situations. There can be no logical reason for legitimising the closed shop in one piece of legislation and then leaving a gap of at least some months, or perhaps a year, before providing in another Bill for safeguards against unreasonable treatment of individuals in a closed shop situation. The two principles should stand side by side. Either both of them or neither of them should appear in the present Bill. Since the Standing Committee has already accepted the provisions of the Bill to legitimise the closed shop we feel it right to press for the second principle to be placed within the Bill.

This clause would have the effect of giving protection to the individual. It is no more than is demanded by natural justice. It is something on which the House should be able to agree. It is not a matter of great issue of principle between us, because the right hon. Gentle man has already accepted that something along the lines of this principle must be right. We say that it should be included in the Bill now so that it can stand in the Bill alongside the closed shop provisions. If the right hon. Gentleman does that then, at a later stage—if he should be there to bring in a later Bill—he could remove the provision from this Bill and put something else to take its place into the later Bill.

Hon. Members on this side of the House feel strongly that it is not right for the House to pass this legislation and to leave it to a later stage to introduce a provision to protect the individual on exclusion or expulsion grounds.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now feel able to respond. We are not seeking to delay the House in this issue. We are not trying to say that everything we have done in the past has been perfect. Everyone in the House will want to see the best possible Bill go on to the statute book. It is not as if anybody in this House could put his hand on his heart and say that he has the answer to all the problems of industrial relations. We have a duty to try to provide the best possible framework within this Bill. Our new Clause 1 will help towards that end.

Mr. Foot

With the leave of the House I should like to reply.

I do not wish to upset the reasonable tone in which the whole debate has been conducted. I do not complain that we have spent a considerable chunk of our time debating this matter. As I have acknowledged through all the discussions, that raises an important question. I am not persuaded by the arguments presented by hon. Gentlemen, just as apparently they have not been persuaded by mine, although one always lives in hope.

The hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) made a point about Donovan. He said that we do not think that his clause is justified by Donovan. In a lapse into legal language he asked, "So what?". The answer is that I am quoting Donovan in order to indicate that he is apparently regarded as the authority. But we have been through that during the Committee stage. Nobody who survived the Committee stage would quote Donovan as the absolute authority. I refer to it because I thought that it was suggested that the hon. Gentleman's clause was justified by the arguments contained in Donovan. I was suggesting in the most modest way that I did not think that argument could be properly sustained.

Mr. Percival

The right hon. Gentleman makes the observation that this was not entirely supported by Donovan. It derives a lot of support from Donovan. A great deal in Donovan suggests that something along these lines must be done. The right hon. Gentleman is right: it is not entirely supported by Donovan. That is why I asked "So what?".

Mr. Foot

The hon. Gentleman is with me on the matter. He concurs in what f have said. I am gratified at that measure of support.

The Opposition seek to provide a remedy. We do not think the new clause will work. This is one of the reasons why we oppose that clause. We do not think the Opposition has taken sufficient account of what Donovan suggested as the way to deal with this problem. Donovan said that in the last resort only there should be an appeal to an independent review body that was set up. Donovan provided a remedy to deal with something that this clause does not deal with properly.

Our second objection is that this clause does not properly recognise the procedures of the unions for dealing with this matter. Donovan understood that better. He said the appeal to the outside tribunal should take place only in the last resort. The hon. Gentleman's clause does not say that. It introduces the industrial tribunal at an earlier stage, with the kind of danger I have described, particularly when there is the possibility of an injuncton.

We think that the clause would remedy injustices for some individuals but it could inflict injustices on some others. That is why we do not believe that it provides the right balance for dealing with the problem. We wish to get the balance right if we are to solve this problem. We do not think that the right balance has been achieved in Section 65 of the 1971 Act. We do not think the balance in this clause is right. We ask the House to assist us in our search for the way in -which we can get it right. That was what I was seeking to say in my earlier remarks.

6.30 p.m.

In my opinion—I trust that this will be the last comment that I make on the subject in this Bill—it would be more sensible for the House, if we genuinely want to secure a remedy which protects the unions from the dangers that they foresee in this kind of clause and protects the individual from the injustices against which we wish to protect him, to try to get a properly agreed solution to the problem. That is what we are asking for. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) might assist in that process, and I hope that he will take that into account.

However, if the House has a difference of opinion on the matter, we had better settle it by the old-fashioned method.

Sir Harmar Nicholls


Mr. Cyril Smith

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I spoke in the debate earlier I addressed my remarks to new Clause 5, though I accept that the debate was on new Clause 1.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place at the time, he would have heard me announce that new Clauses 1 and 5 could be discussed together.

Mr. Smith

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I rose to speak a second time on new Clause 1 to reply to points made by the Minister, I received a message from the Chair advising me that on Report I was not allowed to speak a second time. May I ask you to advise me why a Minister is afforded that privilege but it is denied to a back-bench Member?

Mr. Speaker

I am advised that if the hon. Gentleman will study Standing Order No. 55 he will find the answer to his question. To put it in simpler terms, a Minister or Member in charge of a Bill

or the mover of an amendment or new clause has the right to speak more than once. Another hon. Member can speak more than once only by leave of the House.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I only wanted to say that if the right hon. Gentleman could not conciliate by accepting the clause, he has positively ruled himself out of being a member of our coalition.

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

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 302.

Division No. 71.] AYES [6.33 p.m.
Adley, Robert Crouch, David Hannam, John
Aitken, Jonathan Crowder, F. P. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James Hastings, Stephen
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Havers, Sir Michael
Ancram, M. Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Hawkins, Paul
Archer, Jeffrey Dixon, Piers Hayhoe, Barney
Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne) Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Awdry, Daniel Dodsworth, Geoffrey Henderson, J. S.B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Baker, Kenneth Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Heseltine, Michael
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Drayson, Burnaby Higgins, Terence
Banks, Robert du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hill, James A.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Durant, Tony Holland, Philip
Beith, A. J. Dykes, Hugh Hordern, Peter
Bell, Ronald Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Howell, David (Guildford)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham) Elliott, Sir William Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Benyon, W. Emery, Peter Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Berry, Hon. Anthony Eyre, Reginald Hunt, John
Biffen, John Fairgrieve, Russell Hurd, Douglas
Biggs-Davison, John Farr, John Hutchison, Michael Clark
Blaker, Peter Fell, Anthony Iremonger, T. L.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.) Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Body, Richard Fidler, Michael James, David
Boscswen, Hon. Robert Finsberg, Geoffrey Jenkin. Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW' std & W'fd)
Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown) Fisher, Sir Nigel Jessel, Toby
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent. N.) Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Braine, Sir Bernard Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Bray, Ronald Fookes, Miss Janet Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Brewis, John Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field) Jopling, Michael
Brittan, Leon Fox, Marcus Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Freud, Clement Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Fry, Peter Kershaw, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus
Bryan, Sir Paul Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead) King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Buck, Antony Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) Kirk, Peter
Budgen, Nick Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David Kitson, Sir Timothy
Bulmer, Esmond Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm) Knight, Mrs. Jill
Burden, F. A. Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Knox, David
Carlisle, Mark Glyn, Dr. Alan Lamont Norman
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Goodhart, Philip Lane, David
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Goodhew, Victor Langford-Holt, Sir John
Channon, Paul Goodlad, A. Latham, Michael (Melton)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Gorst, John Lawrence, Ivan
Churchill, W. S. Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton) Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Clark, William (Croydon, S.) Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Gray, Hamish Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Clegg, Walter Grieve, Percy Loveridge, John
Cockcroft, John Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Luce, Richard
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. MacArthur, Ian
Cope, John Grist, Ian McCrindle, R. A.
Cordie, John Grylls, Michael Macfarlane, Neil
Cormack, Patrick Gurden, Harold MacGregor, John
Corrie, John Hall, Sir John McLaren, Martin
Costain, A. P. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Critchley, Julian Hampson, Dr. Keith McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Madel, David Quennell, Miss J. M Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Raison, Timothy Stokes, John
Mather, Carol Rathbone, Tim Stradling Thomas, John
Maude, Angus Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Tapsell, Peter
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Redmond, Robert Taverne, Dick
Mawby, Ray Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T' bridge Wells) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David(H't'gd'ns're) Tebbit, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex) Temple-Morris, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mills, Peter Ridsdale, Julian Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)
Miscampbell, Norman Rifkind, Malcolm Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Townsend, C. D.
Moate, Roger Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.) Trotter, Neville
Molyneaux, James Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Tugendhat, Christopher
Monoy, Ernle Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Tyler, Paul
Monro, Hector Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.) Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Morgan, Geraint Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Viggers, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.) Waddington, David
Morris, Michael (Northampton S.) Royle, Sir Anthony Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Morrison Charles (Devizes) Sainsbury, Tim Wakeham, John
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester) St. John-Stevas, Norman Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mudd, David Scott-Hopkins, James Wall, Patrick
Neave, Airey Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Walters, Dennis
Neubert, Michael Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Warren, Kenneth
Newton, Tony (Braintree) Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm) Weatherill, Bernard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Shersby, Michael Wells, John
Normanton, Tom Silvester, Fred Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Nott, John Sinclair, Sir George Wiggin, Jerry
Onslow, Cranley Skeet, T. H. H. Winstanley, Dr. Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Winterton, Nicholas
Osborn, John Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Spence, John Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.) Worsley, Sir Marcus
Pardoe, John Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.) Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.) Sproat, Iain Younger, Hn. George
Pattie, Geoffrey Stainton, Keith
Percival, Ian Stanbrook, Ivor TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Stanley, John
Pink, R. Bonner Steel, David Mr. Adam Butler and
Price, David (Eastleigh) Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant
Prior, Rt. Hn. James Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Abse, Leo Clemitson, Ivor Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Allaun, Frank Cocks, Michael English, Michael
Archer, Peter Cohen, Stanley Ennals, David
Armstrong, Ernest Coleman, Donald Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Ashley, Jack Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N. Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Ashton, Joe Concannon, J. D. Evans, John (Newton)
Atkins, Ronald Conlan, Bernard Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)
Atkinson, Norman Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.) Faulds, Andrew
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill) Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Crawshaw, Richard Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton) Cronin, John Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Bates, Alf Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Flannery, Martin
Baxter, William Cryer, G. R. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Cunningham, G.(lsl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.) Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n) Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ford, Ben
Bidwell, Sydney Dalyell, Tam Forrester, John
Bishop, E. S. Davidson, Arthur Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.) Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Boardman, H. Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Freeson, Reginald
Booth, Albert Davies, Ifor (Gower) Galpern, Sir Myer
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Deakins, Eric Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.) George, Bruce
Bradley, Tom de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Gilbert, Dr. John
Broughton, Sir Alfred Delargy, Hugh Ginsburg, David
Brown, Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne, W.) Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Golding, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Dempsey, James Gourlay, Harry
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch) Doig, Peter Graham, Ted
Buchan, Norman Dormand, J. D. Grant, George (Morpeth)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen) Duffy, A. E. P. Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.) Dunn, James A. Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich) Dunnett, Jack Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Campbell, Ian Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth Hamling, William
Cant, R. B. Eadie, Alex Hardy, Peter
Carmichael, Neil Edelman, Maurice Harper, Joseph
Carter, Ray Edge, Geoff Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe) Hattersley, Roy
Hatton, Frank Mallalieu, J. P. W. Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Marks, Kenneth Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Heffer, Eric S. Marquand, David Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E) Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Hooley, Frank Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Silkin, Rt. Hn. S.C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
Horam, John Meacher, Michael Sillars, James
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Silverman, Julius
Huckfield, Leslie Mendelson, John Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mikardo, Ian Small, William
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Millan, Bruce Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North) Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride) Snape, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Milne, Edward Spearing, Nigel
Hunter, Adam Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Spriggs, Leslie
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHI) Molloy, William Stallard, A. W.
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford) Moonman, Eric Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Jackson, Colin Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)
Janner, Greville Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena Moyle, Roland Stott, Roger
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Strang, Gavin
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd) Murray, Ronald King Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
John, Brynmor Newens, Stanley (Harlow) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Oakes, Gordon Swain, Thomas
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Ogden, Eric Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) O'Halloran, Michael Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) O'Malley, Brian Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Orbach, Maurice Tierney, Sydney
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley Tinn, James
Judd, Frank Ovenden, John Tomlinson, John
Kaufman, Gerald Owen, Dr. David Tomney, Frank
Kelley, Richard Padley, Walter Torney, Tom
Kerr, Russell Palmer, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Park, George (Coventry, N.E.) Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
Kinnock, Neil Parker, John (Dagenham) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Lambie, David Parry, Robert Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Lamborn, Harry Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lamond, James Pendry, Tom Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Latham, Arthur (City of W' minster P'ton) Perry, Ernest G. Watkins, David
Lawson, George(Motherwell & Wishaw) Phipps, Dr. Colin Watt, Hamish
Leadbitter, Ted Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg Weitzman, David
Lee, John Prescott, John Wellbeloved, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.) White, James
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Price, William (Rugby) Whitehead, Phillip
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.) Radice, Giles Whitlock, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Wigley, Dafydd(Caernarvon)
Lipton, Marcus Reid, George Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lomas, Kenneth Richardson, Miss Jo Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Loughlin, Charles Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Loyden, Eddie Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Williams, Rt.Hn.Shirley(H'f'd&St'ge)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Robertson, John (Paisley) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.) Roderick, Caerwyn E. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
McCartney, Hugh Rodgers, George (Chorley) Wilson, Gordon(Dundee, E.)
MacCormack, Iain Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)
McElhone, Frank Rooker, J. W. Wise, Mrs. Audrey
MacFarquhar, Roderick Roper, John Woodall, Alec
McGuire, Michael Rose, Paul B. Woof, Robert
Mackenzie, Gregor Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Maclennan, Robert Rowlands, Edward Young, David (Bolton, E.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Sandelson, Neville
McNamara, Kevin Sedgemore, Bryan TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Madden, M. O. F. Selby, Harry Mr. Thomas Cox and
Magee, Bryan Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.) Mr. Laurie Pavitt.
Mahon, Simon Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to