§ 4.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)
I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:'(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—
- (a) that it induces another person to break a contract of employment; or
- (b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party.'
§ No. 64, in page 9, leave out lines 29 and 30.
§ No. 70, in page 9, line 12, after 'contract', insert 'of employment'.
§ No. 71, in page 9, line 12, leave out from 'contract' to 'or' in line 14.
§ No. 72, in page 9, line 15, after ' contract ', insert `of employment'.
No. 73, page 9, line 16, leave out
'or its performance interfered with'.
No. 74, in page 9, line 18, after 'contract', insert:
of employment to which that other person is a party'.
No. 75, in page 9, line 18, leave out
'or to interfere with its performance'.
§ No. 76, in page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
§ No. 77, in page 9, line 29, after 'contract', insert ' of employment'.
§ Mr. Percival
Yesterday was a very frustrating day for the Liberal Party and ourselves. However, when I met the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) this morning, as he and I have met so often during the last six or seven weeks, we agreed that yesterday, like all yester 1570 days, is history and that what matters is today. Although he is not present in the Chamber now, I know that he is on on his way. I am grateful to him for taking that line. I am glad that we are entirely in agreement that there are very important matters before the House today on which we shall hope to persuade the Government, or, if not persuade them, carry against them improvements which should be made to the Bill.
I come straight to the first problem. This group of amendments deals with what is generally and loosely referred to as the immunities. I sometimes think that some people talk about "the immunities" without very much understanding of what that is about. It is an area in which the law intervenes to put employers' associations and trade unions into a position that is different from that of the rest of us. That much cannot be controverted. I would go on to say, as I have said previously, that it is a very advantageous position. That cannot be controverted, either.
I should like to illustrate in purely practical terms what this question is about. If I were to enter into a contract with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to do something, and some third person induced me to break it, interfered with my performance of it or prevented me from performing it, the Secretary of State might take that very amiss. He would take it amiss if I were trying to perform the contract and someone else stepped in and tried to prevent me, to the Secretary of State's damage. He would think that the law was an ass if it did not provide him with a remedy. The law is not an ass. It does provide a remedy in such circumstances.
Broadly, interference of that kind, for which there is not lawful justification, gives a person who is injured by it a right to damages. In continuing to relate this matter to practical questions, if we apply that to trade union activities we see immediately that unless some change is made we shall get into this difficulty. If a trade union leader wants to call his men out and does not want to persuade them to terminate their contracts, the only way that he can do so is by inducing them to break their contracts.
We on the Opposition side of the House accept, as Conservative Governments have accepted for a very long time, 1571 that if the law to be applied to that situation was precisely the same as to be applied to any other situation, it would make the activities of a genuine trade union leader, acting in what everyone would agree was a reasonable manner, very difficult indeed. Ever since 1906, therefore, some protection has been given to the union leader against that sort of danger.
One sees in the first line of Amendment No. 80 the protection that has been given since 1906, that is to say,An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only…that it induces another person to break a contract of employment.One can relate that directly to the practical necessities of responsible trade union workings. But it might be said to be illogical to give protection against the doing of an act while not giving protection against the threat to do it. Accordingly, the Conservative Opposition and the Liberal Party accept that the alteration made in the Trade Disputes Act 1965 has a logic about it. That is incorporated in our amendments. Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 80 statesthat it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party.One thing that is quite clear about these amendments is that Amendment No. 80 plus Amendment No. 76—which is to leave out subsection (3)—would put the law back to exactly what it was pre-1971. That is because paragraph (a) of our subsection (1) incorporates in full the provisions of the 1906 Act. If read together with subsection (2) of the Bill and paragraph (b) of our new subsection (1), it gives full effect to the Trade Disputes Act 1965. The other difference is the introduction of subsection (3), so if we left that out we would be back where we were before 1971. There can be no question whatever about that. I hope that no time will be wasted on that issue—as it was wasted in Committee.
What protection, then, was given by those provisions to which I have referred and which we seek to reinstate? It is important to notice that the whole of these provisions are conditioned by the words 1572an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.Not every act that is done, I concede, attracts this protection. It is only an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. I should be out of order in developing this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is permissible, in passing—because it is relevant—to draw attention to the fact that the definition of a trade dispute is widened in the Bill. Therefore, by that fact alone, the area over which the immunities apply is increased. But we are concerned here with the widening of the immunity or protection.
By simply comparing the amendments with the terms of the Bill, hon. Members will see at a glance what is added by the Bill. If one takes Amendment No. 80 as being what the position was pre-1971, everything that is added in the Bill is extra. Curiously enough, the first addition is made by a subtraction—by leaving out the words "of employment". In future this provision refers to all contracts
Let me draw attention, albeit very briefly, to the fact that to allow interference with commercial contracts is an entirely different cup of tea from allowing interference with contracts of employment. One can see the logic of why this immunity was first given because, as I have said, one can see that one could not call men out without running the risk of being liable in tort without that immunity against inducing a breach of contract. But inducing a breach of a commercial contract is another cup of tea altogether. That does not need any painting. But that is not the only addition. There is another enormous addition. I hope that on this occasion the Secretary of State will admit it. There was an awful lot of humbug about what he said in Committee about merely putting matters back to 1971. One of his hon. Friends said that the Government were extending this provision because it ought to be extended. He was much more realistic.
The other way in which the Government are extending the scope of these immunities, as is manifest from comparing the Bill and the amendments, is that the Bill extends them to interference with the performance of a contract—interference of any kind. In addition, 1573 there is a further extension by the introduction of subsection (3), the effect of which is also known to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. So one asks oneself: what is the case for this extension?—because an extension, and a very big extension, there undoubtedly is.
I hope we shall not hear again the argument that there is not really an extension. That was what the Secretary of State tried to say. I read the report of his remarks again this morning and if he was not saying that then some of the words he used look suspiciously like it—but no doubt he will explain himself in his own good time. One of his hon. Friends was much more realistic when he said that of course this is an extension and that this extension is needed because it is necessary for Parliament to steps in and help trade unions in their fight against capitalism. That is where we part company.
It would be much more realistic if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, and people in the TUC, sometimes admitted that. Many people do not take the view that the trade unions are weak bodies which cannot fight for themselves. They take the view that, as in most other walks of life, the strength of trade unions varies. Some are in a very weak position, and we would like them assisted and not put in a weaker position. But the extraordinary thing about this Bill is that some that are in a weak position will find themselves in a weaker one if we do not manage to change some of the things we are to discuss later.
What surprises us is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and those in the TUC never seem prepared even to concede the possibility that some unions, far from needing more assistance from Parliament, are well able to look after themselves in every respect; and a good many people would feel that we are perhaps getting the balance a little too much their way. An hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If people who think that are wrong an awful lot of people are wrong, because there are between 12 million and 15 million people who feel that. They may be wrong, but I do not think they are.
Hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite and in the TUC talk of the need for 1574 consensus. Of course, we agree that if one can get consensus that is very desirable and has very good practical effect. But we on the Opposition side are beginning to feel that in their book "consensus" means "with the consent of the TUC and of the Left Wing." A majority of people in this country are getting a bit fed up with that, and many millions think it is about time that some of those who take the view I have just suggested woke up to the fact that "consensus" means "consent both ways" and that if they really wish to enjoy advantages—one must not use the word "privileges", about which there was so much discussion in Committee—and to be in an advantageous position, compared with that of other people, they should accept that that should be a position which has the consent of the many millions of people who do not enjoy that advantage. If they will approach the matter in that way, saying they realise that consensus is a two-sided and not a one-sided thing, we really shall begin to make progress in achieving the better atmosphere that I know all of us want to achieve.
I have endeavoured to present the case briefly, in an entirely new and practical way, without getting into the arguments we had in Committee and without going over the details again; but I hope the Secretary of State will, if he will forgive me for saying so, do better than what I referred to as "humbug" in his last speech on this in Committee. In particular, I hope we are not going to have it suggested once again that all the right hon. Gentleman is doing is giving effect to Donovan, because what he is suggesting here is not only not giving effect to Donovan; it is something totally different from what Donovan recommended.
I would here refer to a quotation which I included in a speech I made in Committee. I quoted Lord Donovan as saying:…if Section 3 is extended in this way,and what he meant by that is extended by taking out the words "of employment"—and making it applicable to all contracts:then an employer's source of materials can be cut off by inducing the supplier not to supply, and the outlet for his goods can be cut off by inducing the customer not to buy.That describes in a very few words one of the biggest extensions which is brought 1575 about by leaving out these two words. His Lordship continued:The inducement could take the form of threatened strike against the supplier or the customer. Again, the majority of us proposed that this extension of immunity should be confined to trade unions and their officials because they could be made accountable for its abuse.There is no such limitation in this Bill. These provisions are not limited to trade union officials in the course of their duty or at all but apply to any person. The noble Lord went on:But if unofficial elements and ephemeral combinations which are here today and gone tomorrow are to have the same licence"—and they would have under this Bill—then a prospect is opened up which I find alarming. Yet this is apparently what is contemplated, and I find it all the more alarming because it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper said, that there are those who have a vested interest"—and this is not a person from this side of the House but a good trade unionist—not in industrial peace but in industrial unrest, and here we give them another opportunity for exploitation of a licence which they should never have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 18th June 1974; c. 496.]So, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, there are the strongest reasons set out as succinctly as they could be for not making the extensions that are made in this Bill without any compensating balancing factors such as Lord Donovan had in mind in proposing that this extension should be made.
I hope also that we shall not hear any suggestion that because the immunity given under the 1971 Act in some cases referred to breach of commercial contracts, it in any way justifies what the right hon. Gentleman is doing; because no doubt he will appreciate that contracts for employment are wholly different and much more akin to that suggested by Lord Donovan. The only people who would have had that immunity under that Act were people having responsibilities placed on them by the Act.
There is a whole string of amendments being debated together. May I offer to assist the House on the practical questions that arise on this matter? Amendment No. 80 is a composite amendment taking the place of six other amendments—Nos. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. The effects of those six amendments 1576 are brought into one section by Amendment No. 80. It is our view—shared by the hon. Member for Rochdale—that that is the basic amendment upon which one votes and, that being so, Amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 are irrelevant.
Then one comes to Amendment No. 76. Amendment No. 80 deals with the matters to which I have referred in my speech. Amendment No. 76 has to be taken separately, because it seeks to leave out subsection (3), which is the other difference in this clause which widens immunities as I have stated. I feel that if the case arose a separate Division on that would be possible. Although being discussed and considered together with others for convenience, one would feel that a separate vote should be called on that if required.
If Amendment No. 76 is carried the whole of subsection (3) has gone, and therefore the amendment of the hon. Member for Rochdale and his right hon. and hon. Friends would no longer be relevant, because it seeks to leave out two lines from subsection (3). But if Amendment No. 76 were to fail, Amendment No. 64 would become relevant, and we would take the same view as the hon. Member. If we cannot get the whole section out let us get those two lines out. Therefore, I assume. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if it became relevant that would be a fit matter for a separate vote.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I made this matter clear. Amendment No. 64 is wrongly marshalled, and being an amendment to reject lines 29 and 30 it should be placed immediately after Amendment No. 76.
§ Mr. Percival
The Table was kind enough to tell me that that point had been observed and it was on that assumption that I was dealing with the amendments in the order I was, because when Amendment No. 64 is marshalled into its correct place in the manner in which you have just indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the votes could come in the order in which I have been dealing with them.
I finally come to Amendment No. 77. If Amendment No. 76 were lost and the hon. Member for Rochdale wanted a Division on Amendment No. 64, and it 1577 fell, Amendment No. 77 would become relevant and we should have to consider whether a vote should be taken on that amendment.
These are four separate matters which emerge from this whole group of amendments. I commend Amendment No. 80 to the House.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot)
I do not know whether any other hon. Member wishes to address the House, but none rose when I rose to speak. I dare say that others may wish to intervene later, and by speaking now I do not seek to preclude them, even if I had the power to do so, which I do not have.
As in Committee, we are extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) for the way in which he elucidates all these matters, Some of us are certainly much wiser at the end of his speeches than we were at the beginning—particularly when we have heard the speech two or three times. I am therefore happy to respond to his speech in the way in which he made it.
In our debates yesterday I said that I thought the subject under debate was extremely important. No one could deny that, whatever the difference of view we might take about the solution to be sought. Clause 10, as it now is, is an extremely important part of the Bill, of course, although I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman in some of the interpretations that he makes about the meaning of our clause and some of the claims that he has made for his different approach.
I say in no controversial spirit that I am extremely touched by the appeal that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes to the Liberal Party in the name of 1906. He certainly pinched that from me, at any rate, because that is what I said in Committee. The only difference between my appeal and his is that I am entitled to make it and he is not, because it so happens that in 1906 the Labour Party and the Liberal Party saw eye to eye on the matter, and I do not recall that the Conservatives of that day favoured the 1906 Act. However, we understand that they are now in favour of the 1906 Act and we ought to welcome that sign of progress, and I am happy to see that we 1578 have made that advance. Perhaps it has been the reading of my speech that has produced the effect now revealed.
I also thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, in this mood of accommodation, for setting down Amendment No. 80. I fully agree with what he said about the clarity of it, the comparison between what he and his party propose in Amendment No. 80 and what we have written into the Bill. It clarifies the situation. The additions that we make are important for very good reasons.
Let us take first the insertion of the words "of employment", which would limit the kind of contract which will be affected. The hon. and learned Gentleman first warned me that I should not invoke the 1971 Act to my support by underlining that that Act, admittedly in different circumstances, extended the cover from contracts of employment to commercial contracts, and just because he says that I am not entitled to invoke it does not mean that there is no point in invoking it. I am not suggesting that I shall rest on that comparison, but it is not possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to imagine that we are doing something so heinous that it must be denounced in the most medieval manner when in some respects we are doing what was done in the 1971 Act.
The intention existed there to cover commercial contracts as well as contracts of employment. I recognise that that provision was governed by other provisions about the registration of trade unions, and by other factors, but it is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there is no point in extending the cover from contracts of employment to commercial contracts when the Conservatives took exactly that step for certain trade unions in their own Act.
§ Mr. Percival
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there is any comparison between giving this immunity to all and sundry without any limitation. as he does in the Bill, and giving it to registered unions who ex hypothesi in the 1971 Act had to undertake responsibilities and obligations, and also bearing in mind that that Act included protection for innocent third parties who might otherwise be hurt, the best of which section is set out in Amendment No. 81?
§ Mr. Foot
I am not saying the comparisons are complete by any means, and I think I made that clear already. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me to develop my argument as I permitted him to develop his he will see the point. Why, therefore should the Conservatives have extended the cover in the 1971 Act from contracts of employment, as under the 1906 Act, to commercial contracts, even for registered unions? One of the reasons they may have done that, or why they may have been pushed in that direction, has some interest and relevance to our debate. Possibly they, too, had been reading the Donovan Report, and possibly they, too, had taken some account of the recommendations of Donovan on the subject.
The hon. and learned Gentleman talks of—I think his phrase was—an entirely different cup of tea—
§ Mr. Foot
Indeed it is, and it is in the same category as his other legal phrase—"so what?". He introduces these brawling vulgarisms into our debate and we are compelled to follow along the same path. He says that this is an entirely different cup of tea, and that he has legal authority for saying so. He refers to the difference between contracts of employment and commercial contracts. If this is such an entirely different cup of tea I wonder why Donovan spent about three or four pages describing the obscurity of the situation saying that it should be cleared up, why, if it was so apparent to everyone, why if there was no obscurity, why if there was no problem to be solved, did Donovan suggest the removal of exactly the words which we have removed.
That is what Donovan did. I shall come later, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me, to the quotation from Donovan. That covers many other aspects of the matter. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his most genial manner, talks of humbug on my part, but he must face the fact—and he failed to do so in Committee—that the wording in the clause is the wording that is recommended in the Donovan Report. What he has done is to remove the words which Donovan recommended should be inserted. I am sure that the 1580 hon. and learned Gentleman will not deny that. Therefore, he must not tell the House with all his legal authority, and as if it must accept it, that the two matters are entirely different cups of tea. Donovan said that they are very much the same cup of tea, so much so that we must strain one from the other. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. It is in the Donovan Report. I shall come in a moment to what Donovan said in another place.
First, let us be clear that there is a difference between what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in Amendment No. 80 and that Donovan recommended. Of course, it is not necessarily for dealing with exactly the same situation. The first reason for making a difference in the clause is that we have taken account of what Donovan said. That is not because we regard Donovan as the final authority on these matters but because of his argument that the law was obscure and that it should be made plain.
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was not only Donovan that said that the law had to be made plain but all the other authorities that I cited in Committee, including the Bar Council. They all said, "Please clear up the matter." What the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have done in the amendment is to ask the House to restore the obscurity which Donovan said should be removed. There is no escape from that proposition. I say to the Liberal Party, if by any chance it were to be misled—and it is extremely improbable that it should be so innocent in these matters—that if it were to believe that it would be following the 1906 precedent by doing what is proposed it would also be adopting the course of rejecting Donovan's recommendations. I dare say that other hon. Members may wish to intervene in the debate. I am trying to follow the same lines of argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman pursued.
§ Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He will appreciate that it is possible to make the law clear in one of two alternative ways. There can be a direct interference with a form of contract and that would be a breach. That is clear. There can also he indirect interference. Therefore, the law can be 1581 clarified either way. The right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that the law can be clarified only in one way.
§ Mr. Foot
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the clarification that we have introduced follows exactly along the lines recommended by Donovan. What the Conservative Party has done is to reject Donovan's recommendation. I underline this matter not because I am saying that Donovan is the final authority but because of the accusation which is made against the Government. I repeat that it cannot be such a scandalous and improper proposal that we are making when it follows exactly what Donovan recommended.
I know that there are other aspects of the argument, and I am not trying to escape from them. I shall not go ever all the arguments that led us to believe that it was necessary to change from a contract of employment only to commercial contracts as well. We rehearsed those arguments in Committee, and I could repeat them and elaborate them now. Partly they derive from the changes in the application of the law which have arisen between 1906 and 1971. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman says that by Amendment No. 80 he is restoring the position to 1906, but in view of the argument that we had in Committee—and there are plenty of cases to substantiate it—he would not be restoring the position to 1906, but trying to restore the position without taking into account the alterations which have arisen and the decisions that have been made in the courts which influence the way in which the law is interpreted. That also applies to the second objection which is taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman to what we have proposed in the clause.
The second difference between Amendment No. 80 and the clause, which the hon. and learned Gentleman underlined correctly, is covered by Amendments Nos. 71, 73 and 75. They relate to the other words that we have inserted in the clause—namely:interferes or induces any other person to interfere with its performance …As the hon. and learned Gentleman said in Committee, that is an addition which he thinks is extremely sinister, because it was not recommended by Donovan. He sometimes uses the argument both ways. 1582 First, he would not accept the insertion of the original words because he said that Donovan does not matter. He then was much alarmed because we had introduced words not recommended by Donovan.
We are putting forward these matters on their own merits. I would have thought that even on the ground of common sense—if I may be so daring as to introduce such a note—the words are not so terrifying because if the greater action—that is, the breach—is to be protected it seems logical that the lesser action—namely interference with performance without a breach—should also be protected. As I read the words, that is their true meaning. It might be argued, "Why introduce them?" Once again, I could go through the cases in which we believe that there has been an alteration in the way in which the law has been interpreted. I know that I must be careful in the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying anything about the way in which the courts interpret the law. If I stray from the absolutely rigid path he will accuse me of accusing Her Majesty's judges of making the law on their own account. I understand how much that provokes him.
I must say that I sometimes read history as well as law. It is difficult to read about the history of our trade unions without coming to the conclusion that there have been alterations in the way in which the law operates because of the decisions that have taken place in the courts. Those changes have no doubt been made according to the way in which the judges think that changes should be made. It so happens that these words are introduced partly for those very reasons. The extension of immunity in this way is necessary because of the development of potential liability in tort by the courts. Stating the law as it was generally accepted to be in 1968, the Donovan Report stated that mere interference with another person's business by itself was not actionable. However, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning. in Torquay Hotels v. Cousins, in 1969, said:the time has come when the principle"—that is, the principle of inducement of breach of contract, a tort originated in the case of Lumley v. Gye in 1853—should be further extended to cover deliberate and direct interference with the execution of a contract without that causing any breach.1583 It may be argued by some that in using those words—and I know that I must say this with the utmost delicacy—Lord Denning was propounding a new tort or something that comes very near it. In any case, the reference in the clause to interference with performance of a contract makes it clear that such action is protected.
I return to the formulation in Section 3, the first limb, of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Without such an amendment it would fail to recognise the way in which the courts have, since 1906, developed the tort of inducement and extended it to include the prevention of performance of a contract without a breach.
I do not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he says that we are in a sense extending the position. I have never tried to conceal that. In the Consultative Document we said that we did not regard these extensions as of major importance, in the sense of changig the law fundamentally, because in practically every case we were seeking merely to rectify a situation which had arisen as a result of a court judgment, as the Labour Government did in 1965 after the Rookes v. Barnard case. With regard to some of the other cases we have thought it necessary, as we are reintroducing these immunities and protections, to ensure that they are brought up to date and that they deal with the modern legal position. Therefore, the new formulation in the Bill represents a modernisation of the 1906 formulation to maintain protection for tort liabilities not in contemplation at the time of the 1906 Act.
If the 1906 formulation is not modernised in this way, trade union activities, such as approaches to other persons, employers, firms and suppliers, warning them of impending strike action—which would clearly be interfering with the performance of a contract—would be made unlawful. If the Liberal Members were tempted to vote with the Conservatives on this matter, they would be assisting the Conservative Party to continue to take away from trade unions rights which they fully exercised for many years after 1906 but which have been denied them as a result of more recent developments.
I promise to come to the other Donovan interpretation, because I know that 1584 the hon. and learned Gentleman sets great store on it. He would not like me to read the Donovan Report without saying what Lord Donovan said in the House of Lords. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman intervenes to read me that quotation for a fourth time, I promise him that we shall come to it.
First, I want to say a few words about the Liberal Amendment No. 64 and the Opposition Amendment No. 76. Subsection (3) is intended to clarify the position and, in effect, codify the line taken by the majority of judges. It represents another aspect of the modernisation of the traditional immunities. Indeed, it would be all the more necessary that Amendment No. 76 be carried if the Opposition were to succeed in their earlier amendments, but we need not expect that catastrophe to occur. Therefore, I do not urge the matter particularly on those grounds.
However, the subsections are important to forestall any possibility of circumvention by the courts of an argument that subsection (1)(a) would otherwise protect only a direct inducement of breach of a contract of employment or of a commercial contract. What we are doing is to clarify the law, to bring it up to date, to take account of changes that may have occurred. But none of these things need cause the great alarms in so many quarters of which we have heard.
The suggestions by some critics and commentators that a wide extension of trade union power derives from what we propose are not correct. We do not deny that it is an extension of the law as it appeared to be laid down in 1906, but we have taken into account the recommendations made by Donovan for clearing up the law, in our own view, as to what is to be done to clarify the law. What we are seeking to put on the statute book is a much clearer law.
I can hardly imagine such a somersault as there would be in the Liberal Party's choosing to oppose this. If politicians are to turn somesaults, they should do it fairly speedily, like the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). To turn a somersault over a period between 1906 and 1974 would be an extraordinarily athletic feat, and I do not recommend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) to undertake it. 1585 I hope that the Liberal Party will stand firmly behind the meaning, intention and effect of the 1906 Act, which is what we are seeking to do by our clause.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that we must listen not to what Donovan said in his report, with the assistance of all the other distinguished gentlemen. but to what he said in the House of Lords, which was real evidence, unlike the mature judgments he reached in his report.
§ Mr. Percival
What we are saying is that if one wants to pay attention to what Donovan said in his report one must pay attention to the whole of it and not just a part. As an illustration of the importance of doing so, we drew attention to what he said personally in the quotation we are now going to hear for about the fourth time from the Government side of the House as well.
§ Mr. Foot
I shall not read the quotation. I do not mind reading it again, but I am sure that the House would be more interested in the refutation. It is true that Lord Donovan made those remarks. He did so in a speech criticising the Labour Government of that time for some proposals in the document, "In Place of Strife". I seem to have heard of that document in some of our discussions. Lord Donovan was critical of some of its proposals. He criticised the proposal that protection for inducing breach of commercial contract should be extended not only to trade unions but to any persons. It was largely as a result of that criticism that he developed the argument to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention.
At the hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation, I have given some study to Lord Donovan's speech. He was arguing against the three reasons which the then Labour Government had advanced for their proposals. I should like to deal with each of those proposals in turn, because they illustrate not merely the argument between us about what Lord Donovan did and did not say but the practicalities of the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
The first reason the Labour Government of the day gave for the proposal was that experience showed that employers were normally unwilling to sue for breach of contract. Lord Donovan 1586 criticised that on the grounds that it failed to distinguish between suing for breach of contract and suing for inducing a breach of contract. He pointed out that employers were in fact willing to sue for inducing breaches of contract.
I think that the answer to him was given by the Government at the end of the debate, when it was pointed out that all the cases he mentioned in this context involved injunctions against union officials in official strikes. In those circumstances the injunction was likely to be obeyed and to be effective. But the case of unofficial strikes was rather different. It might be possible to identify the ringleaders, but often they were not in a position to call off a strike.
As the Donovan Report showed, pressure for industrial action frequently came from below rather than from above. Moreover, in that sort of situation there was a danger that to pick out the alleged ringleaders might lead to an allegation of victimisation and thus make the dispute worse. That was the answer given at the time to the first of the reasons put forward by the Labour Government in defence of their proposals. It was a good answer then and it remains a good answer now.
The second reason given by the Labour Government at that time was that if protection extended only to trade unions, trade unions would have a rule that all strikes were official strikes unless otherwise declared. In that way immunity would be continued to be enjoyed by unofficial strike leaders. Donovan criticised this on the grounds that such a course was hardly likely to commend itself to many unions, and in any event the law could, if necessary be declared void. That was not a very convincing rebuttal. There was a distinct possibility that any restricted protection would be got round in the way suggested, and it would be difficult for the law to deal with this. That was the answer to the second point.
The third reason given by the Labour Government at that time for what they were doing was that even if provoked by the employer the unofficial strike leader could advance the defence of justification. Lord Donovan criticised that point on the ground that justification has always been a defence to an action for inducing a break of contract, although 1587 he admitted that one could not say in advance what facts would amount to justification in any particular case. I think that Lord Donovan was being rightly cautious there, and that the Government point that a defence of justification would not be available was a good one. I understand that the justification defence has been accepted only once in the context of inducing breach of contract and that was in the famous case of Brimelow v. Casson in 1924. Apparently there is no other recorded case.
Therefore, it seems to me that restricting the protection to trade unions would leave an unofficial strike leader completely unprotected, even if an unreasonable and irresponsible employer provoked him into calling industrial action. An example might be where an employer had been repeatedly asked to put right some important safety matter but had not done so. Therefore if the debate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention previously had been carefully studied by him he would have seen that it was not a one way argument that he was seeking to present to the Committee, and now to the House. I believe that on closer inspection Lord Donovan's arguments in that speech can be answered as I have answered them. Some of those arguments were fully answered at the time but I wish to emphasise that we do not base our claim to Clause 10 solely on what Donovan said in his report or at any other time. We are modernising the traditional 1906 immunity, which extended to persons. It was not restricted to trade unions, and this is one of the central features in the argument. Therefore, we do not think that a modernised version of the 1906 immunity should be restricted in the way Donovan suggested in the House of Lords but did not suggest in his report.
I hope that whatever may be the course of argument which may proceed in this debate, it will be fully understood that all the Government are proposing in this important clause is the way in which trade unions are to have immunity—I do not use that word in the pejorative way the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to use it—to exercise proper rights. We are concerned about trade unions' rights; 1588 the Liberal Party should be concerned about them, too.
We are concerned about the rights which trade unions and trade unionists have exercised since 1906 in one way or another, but which were in many respects curtailed by the action of the courts over the last decade or so. Those rights should be properly restored. In restoring the rights we are not making a threat to the community; we are, indeed, enlarging the freedom of the individual. There were arguments yesterday about the individual. We are concerned about the way in which individual men and women are to band together to protect their rights. The clause is essential to the proper working of the Bill and, in the terms in which we have stated it, to the proper repeal of the 1971 Act.
If the Liberal Party, which voted on Second Reading for the Bill, wishes to be consistent it should support us now. We do not believe that anyone need be alarmed about what we are doing. The matter has been discussed and argued fully in the country and most of it was covered by what Donovan recommended.
I have dealt with the principal difference between what the Opposition propose and what we propose and I hope that on the basis of what I have said the House will be prepared to leave the Bill as it stands in order to achieve the purpose for which we voted on Second Reading.
§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)
As one who did not have the pleasure of hearing the Secretary of State in Committee on this subject, I am grateful that his position has now been explained to me before I take part in the debate. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would set my fears at rest regarding the serious nature of the change in the law which he is proposing in Clause 10, but he has done no such thing. To his credit, he has made no attempt to foster the illusion still prevailing outside the House that this part of the Bill is simply intended to restore us to the position as it was before 1971. The right hon. Gentleman has not used that argument. He has made clear that he is making a change in the law and extending privileges and immunities before the law beyond what they were before the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
1589 The right hon. Gentleman has not done a service in minimising the seriousness of the nature of the change. He has used words like "clarifying" and "modernising", whereas this clause brings about a big change. In this respect the right hon. Gentleman has been wholly misleading and has been playing down the seriousness of what he is doing. I do not believe that he really regards this as such a minor and inconsequential change.
There were times when such changes in the law were not of great concern. Certainly until the 1960s, trade disputes in this country were never of a political nature. Those who conducted the disputes were very much part of the established trade union tradition, and there was no great fear of abuse of power. But now we are in a period in which people feel it is not the time for any Government to extend the immunities and privileges of selected groups of people before the law when they are engaged in trade disputes.
There is a serious difference between what the Secretary of State is now doing and what we did in 1971, and what is recommended in Donovan. It is not right to say that he is simply restoring rights to trade unions and trade unionists. It must be a fundamental feature of the clause that the immunities he proposes are being extended to people engaging in trade disputes, whether those people are members of a trade union, or are trade unionists, or are merely an ad hoc collection of people who, in certain circumstances, might not even be employees of any of the firms involved. They could come together for any industrial or political purpose and conduct a trade dispute.
This is a particularly important matter in present circumstances. I have in mind a body like the Ulster Workers' Council, which recently conducted a dispute in Northern Ireland. There could be an equivalent body, large or small, in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it would have immunities before the law extended to it on a larger scale than those which have been extended to any trade unions in the past.
§ Mr. Foot
If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument he must face the fact that he is seeking to remove an immunity which was there under the 1906 Act and which also referred to persons. He must 1590 not carry the Liberal Party with him on the basis that it would be extending the 1906 Act when, in fact, it would be going back into the 19th century.
§ Mr. Clarke
The 1906 Act immunity was restricted to contracts of employment. The Secretary of State is giving blanket immunity to break contracts or induce breaches of contracts of any commercial kind. He cannot make that sort of intervention, suggesting that we are returning to the 1906 position. This measure gives to groups of people a potential right to break contracts, to picket or take other action to induce others to break contracts over a wide area. It affects contracts with persons or countries to whom others objected. The measure enables persons to obstruct purchases by a company or to interfere with contracts for the repair and supply of component parts.
To say that this is what the Liberal Government intended in 1906 that ad hoc bodies of people could object to a firm's supplying goods to a certain country, or to some feature of the firm's financial policy and gain total legal immunity—is to misrepresent the position. The Secretary of State is giving people the power to break contracts and to induce others to do so—to interfere with the business activity of a firm over a wide range. The suggestion that he is putting us to back to where we were before 1971 is entirely inaccurate.
Given that this is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do, he ought to have given us some examples of the kind of circumstances he envisages arising. What are the kinds of disputes he sees being covered by this provision? To say that it covers a situation when an employer might have provoked an unofficial dispute by failing to deal with some safety measure is to give the mildest example. What about some extreme political body engaging in a trade dispute with a firm because it objects to the country of origin of some component parts supplied to the firm or because it objects to the countries to which products are going? Are they to be protected by this clause? We have had no indication of the circumstances which, given today's climate, could arise. The most unlikely bodies, far removed from traditional trade unions and trade unionists, could indulge in 1591 widespread industrial activity. The right hon. Gentleman could be legalising wrecking activity on a scale we have not so far seen in the commercial life of this country, in a way that could never have been contemplated in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman's Bill goes well beyond emergency legislation putting the clock back while this political issue is resolved, an election held and a majority Government comes forward with fresh proposals. The Secretary of State is trying to make a serious change in the law bearing upon the fundamental issue facing us all, affecting the issue of what are the legitimate interests and rights of trade unionists on the one hand and of individual employees and firms on the other. He is altering the balance very much indeed, potentially in favour of most unlikely groups who ought not to be placed in any privileged position before the law. On that basis I feel that his attempts to minimise what he is doing are quite inappropriate. I hope that we will press this amendment and try to get back to some more sensible proposition.
§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)
The first thing I must do is to make it clear that I was not a member of the 1906 Government. I am a bit worried about the wooing of the Liberal Party that has gone on from both Front Benches this afternoon. I find it intriguing and almost embarrassing. I began to wonder, i in the middle of the Minister's speech, whether he was appealing for a coalition on this and other matters. Can it be that the Government have suddenly found, now that the Scottish Nationalists have gone off home rather early, that the votes of the Liberals are a little more important today than they were yesterday?
If the right hon. Gentleman had been as willing or as forceful in wooing the Liberals when they were attempting to introduce clauses which would have covered the position of individuals I would find his wooing today more persuasive and would be more willing to respond to it. It seems that his wooing is evident only when individuals are acting collectively as a trade union. It is not nearly so effective or forceful when we argue in favour of the individual acting as an individual. I regret to say that I find his argument not entirely as 1592 impressive as he would, no doubt, wish it to be.
The Liberals, and, I hope, the official Opposition, recognise and would wish to protect the right of a man to strike. I believe that any man has the right to withdraw his labour. We are not so much concerned here with that as with the situation which arises when a trade union, having withdrawn labour, seeks to involve a third party in the dispute. The issue is whether in those circumstances the immunity should apply. Should trade unionists in a strike situation have the right to be immune in law if they involve that third party who has nothing to do with the dispute?
We do not say that a union cannot involve such people. Even if the amendments were carried, all they would mean would be, that a union would not be immune in law. It seems reasonable that one of the amendments should be carried. There is a limit to how far the House can be expected, by this Bill, to protect the trade union movement but not to protect anyone else. There is a limit to how far we can be pushed along that road.
It was evident in Committee and yesterday that if we attempt to move an amendment protecting the individual we are told "There is a lot in what the hon. Member says, but perhaps he could wait till we introduce the Bill dealing with the rights of employees; we will cover that then." However, when it comes to protecting trade unions or extending the immunity granted to the trade union movement—which the Minister has conceded this clause does—then action can be taken now; it does not have to wait till later.
I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State. Unless he makes some concession and accepts Amendment No. 76 or Amendment No. 64 I would feel bound to advise my colleagues to support the Opposition. While I want to protect the right of a man to strike I cannot be pushed too far along this road of constantly extending the immunity granted to the trade union movement. There must be concessions granted in return.
§ Sir Raymond Gower
What the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has said is much more consistent with the tradition of Liberalism than what was suggested by the Secretary of State. It is 1593 ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to compare conditions today with those of 60 or 70 years ago. He is harking back to the situation that obtained in 1908 and is seeking to say that we should make the same sort of judgments today as were made then. There is a fair case for saying that in those days far too many ordinary members of trade unions did not have a fair deal under Conservative and Liberal Governments alike. It is fatuous now to hark back to those days and seek to compare them with conditions today.
The Opposition and the Liberals would be collectively failing in their duty if they did not oppose this dangerous extension. None of us wants to restrict the right of a person to withhold his labour. The right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that we are having a party battle over the rights of a person to withhold his labour, although he well knows that is not so.
As a Minister, in the economic circumstances of today the right hon. Gentleman should be concerned not only about advancing the privileges of groups but about the future economic salvation of the country. He must know that for a long time, under Labour and Conservative Governments, we have been living on a knife edge. We have a highly sophisticated pattern of industry. We have sub-contractors to the main contractors in the motor industry and other great industries, and this extension might lead to untold damage to industrial relations and to our whole economic performance. As a member of a Government which inherited great economic difficulties, as have successive Governments, the right hon. Gentleman's concern should be to strike a balance. Each individual has an undoubted right to withhold his labour. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to extend that right to people who enter into innocent commercial contracts and who may be offended by the extension.
I fear that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not considered all the implications of what they propose. They may have read Donovan and many other documents carefully, but they do not seem to understand that our highly susceptible economy cannot stand lockouts and strikes beyond those which are unavoidable. Our trouble is not that too 1594 many people have been prevented from withholding their labour; our trouble is that we have been too disposed to bring our economic activities to a halt for inadequate reasons.
The amendment seeks to prevent a dangerous extension of certain privileges and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it.
§ Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)
I find the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in his quieter and more reflective moods this afternoon and yesterday, much more beguiling than I did in Committee. There, he appeared always to be good-humoured but rather bombastic. I wonder what accounts for his sudden change of mood within the last few days. It makes these debates much more agreeable to us.
When the right hon. Gentleman speaks ad lib I understand exactly what he is saying. When he reads from his brief I am never certain whether he is quoting someone else or whether he quite understands what he is saying. I have the good manners not to interrupt him and ask, although I probably should not be much wiser if I did.
Our amendments are designed to restore the position on the immunity of trade unions to that which obtained in 1971. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman one might think that we were dealing with a downtrodden and underprivileged section of society called the trade union movement. That was the position in 1906, and it was precisely because the trade unions and organised labour were so weak that the 1906 Act was passed. It was considered that the unions must have the extra protection afforded by the immunities from the ordinary effect of the law. No one could seriously argue that that situation pertains today. One might argue strongly that, far from the law of immunities needing to be widened. it needs to be considerably narrowed.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted paragraph 889 of the Donovan Report, which speaks of the law being far from clear. If he reads on—as he undoubtedly did when he prepared his speech—he will find that paragraph 894 is in these terms:the protection of any extension of Section 3 should … be restricted to those bodies which will be trade unions under the suggested new arrangements for incorporation and registration. They do not think it should apply to temporary combinations.1595 In quoting Donovan in his favour, the right hon. Gentleman should refer to what is said a little later.
For the benefit of some of my hon. Friends who may have missed it, I shall quote what Mr. Campbell Adamson has to say about the clause. No one would accuse Mr. Adamson of leaning over backwards to put a Conservative point of view, but this is what he said in a letter to The Times of 11th June:If the Bill is passed as at present drafted, unions, officials and shop stewards will be free in law to strike or indulge in other industrial action, or to ' black ', blockade or boycott, or threaten to do so, whenever they like, officially or unofficially, constitutionally or in breach of procedure, in respect of a trade dispute anywhere in Great Britain or in the rest of the world. Secondly, it will be lawful to use the picket line for the purpose of establishing boycotts or blockades, whether against an employer in dispute or against employers, companies, public corporations or any other bodies which have nothing to do with the dispute in question.That is the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman says is no change from the pre-1971 position but just a little tidying up of the 1906 position. He justified that in Committee by saying some rather unpleasant things about the judges. He said:I am sorry to say that the history of the law governing trade disputes in this country is one of constant encroachment by the courts on the rights of unions and others engaging in strike activities. Some say that judges have shown great ingenuity, or perhaps resourcefulness is a more vapid word to use. The judges have been resourceful over the years in trying to ensure that the law was clarified in a way which suited them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th June 1974; c. 481.]I have never heard such arrant nonsense as that from the right hon. Gentleman.
We know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do. He is not
|Division No. 74]||AYES||[5.39 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Benyon, W.||Bruce-Gardyne, J.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Berry, Hon. Anthony||Bryan, Sir Paul|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Biffen, John||Buchanan-Smith, Alick|
|Ancram, M.||Biggs-Davison, John||Buck, Antony|
|Archer, Jeffrey||Blaker, Peter||Budgen, Nick|
|Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)||Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Awdry, Daniel||Body, Richard||Burden, F. A.|
|Baker, Kenneth||Boscawen, Hon. Robert||Carlisle, Mark|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Banks, Robert||Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)||Chalker, Mrs. Lynda|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Braine, Sir Bernard||Channon, Paul|
|Beith, A. J.||Bray, Ronald||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher|
|Bell, Ronald||Brittan, Leon||Churchill, W. S.|
§ merely trying to put the law back to the 1971 position; he is extending the immunities a good deal further, because that is what the trade union movement has told him to do. If he cannot tell the House that, he is perfectly prepared to tell the readers of Tribune. In a recent article in Tribune he told his readers that he was out to restore the full vigour and strength of the working people combined for action. That is his position, and it would be better if he admitted it freely to the House instead of saying that he is not making any major changes.
§ The nation as a whole has an interest in the least possible disruption of production by disputes. Individuals have an interest in the stability and orderly growth of their earnings. Neither of those interests is adequately reflected in the Bill. The amendment is designed to ensure a clear choice between a policy for industrial relations which is designed to hold the balance in the interests both of the individual and the community as a whole, and the Government's policy of giving trade unions a measure of power against both the individual and the community, which cannot in the long run be in the interests of any of those concerned. The House has the opportunity to make that choice today on the amendment.
§ I agree with what the hon. Member for Rochdale said. The Secretary of State for Employment is far too concerned to protect and to enlarge the great power of the trade unions, and gives far too little attention to the protection of the rights of the individual against those powers. I hope that we shall reject what the right hon. Gentleman said and pass the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 287.
|Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Clark, William (Croydon, S.)||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Raison, Timothy|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hunt, John||Rathbone, Tim|
|Cockcroft, John||Hurd, Douglas||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Redmond, Robert|
|Cope, John||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Cordle, John||James, David||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)||Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)|
|Corrie, John||Jessel, Toby||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Costain, A. P.||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Crouch, David||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Crowder, F. P.||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Jopling, Michael||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Kershaw, Anthony||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Dixon, Piers||Kimball, Marcus||Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Kitson, Sir Timothy||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Durant, Tony||Knox, David||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lemont, Norman||Shelton, William (L'mb't, Streath'm)|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Lane, David||Shersby, Michael|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Silvester, Fred|
|Elliott, Sir William||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Sims, Roger|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lawrence, Ivan||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Farr, John||Le Marchant, Spencer||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Fell, Anthony||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)|
|Fanner, Mrs. Peggy||Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)||Spence, John|
|Fidler, Michael||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)||Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Loveridge, John||Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||MacArthur, Ian||Sproat, Iain|
|Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)||McCrindle, R. A.||Stainton, Keith|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Macfarlane, Neil||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||MacGregor, John||Stanley, John|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)||McLaren, Martin||Steel, David|
|Fox, Marcus||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)||Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Freud, Clement||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Fry, Peter||Madel, David||Stokes, John|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stradling Thomas, John|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)||Mather, Carol||Tapsell, Peter|
|Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)||Maude, Angus||Taverne, Dick|
|Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)|
|Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tebbit, Norman|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Goodhart, Philip||Mayhew. Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Goodhew, Victor||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)|
|Goodlad, A.||Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Gorst, John||Mills, Peter||Townsend, C. D.|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Miscampbell, Norman||Trotter, Neville|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Moate, Roger||Tyler, Paul|
|Gray, Hamish||Money, Ernie||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Grieve, Percy||Monro, Hector||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)||Viggers, Peter|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Morgan, Geraint||Waddington, David|
|Grist, Ian||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Grylls, Michael||Morris, Michael (Northampton,[...]||Wakeham, John|
|Gurden, Harold||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Hall, Sir John||Mudd, David||Wall, Patrick|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Neave, Airey||Walters, Dennis|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Neubert, Michael||Warren, Kenneth|
|Hannam, John||Newton, Tony (Braintree)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Wells, John|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss||Nott, John||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hastings, Stephen||Onslow, Cranley||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally||Winstanley, Dr. Michael|
|Hawkins, Paul||Osborn, John||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Kayhoe, Barney||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Pardoe, John||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Henderson, J. S. B.(Dunbartonshire, E.)||Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)||Worsley, Sir Marcus|
|Heseltine, Michael||Pattie, Geoffrey||Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)|
|Higgins. Terence||Percival, Ian|
|Holland, Philip||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hordern, Peter||Pink, R. Bonner||Mr. Walter Clegg and|
|Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Mr. Adam Butler|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Prior, Rt. Hn. James|
|Abse, Leo||Faulds, Andrew||McElhone, Frank|
|Allaun, Frank||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||MacFarquhar, Roderick|
|Archer, Peter||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||McGuire, Michael|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Ashley, Jack||Flannery, Martin||Maclennan, Robert|
|Ashton, Joe||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Atkins, Ronald||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Madden, M. O. F.|
|Atkinson, Norman||Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael||Magee, Bryan|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Ford, Ben||Mahon, Simon|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Forrester, John||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)||Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Bates, Alf||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||Marquand, David|
|Baxter, William||Freeson, Reginald||Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Galpern, Sir Myer||Meacher, Michael|
|Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)||Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Mendelson, John|
|Bishop, E. S.||George, Bruce||Mikardo, Ian|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Gilbert, Dr. John||Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)|
|Boardman, H.||Ginsburg, David||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)|
|Booth, Albert||Golding, John||Molloy, William|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Gourlay, Harry||Moonman, Eric|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Graham, Ted||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Bradley, Tom||Grant, John (Islington, C.)||Morris. Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)||Moyle, Roland|
|Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)||Murray, Ronald King|
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'dltch)||Hamling, William||Newens, Stanley (Harlow)|
|Buchan, Norman||Hardy, Peter||Oakes, Gordon|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn||Harper, Joseph||Ogden, Eric|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||O'Malley, Brian|
|Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)||Hatton, Frank||Orbach, Maurice|
|Campbell, Ian||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Ovenden, John|
|Cant, R. B.||Heffer, Eric S.||Owen, Dr. David|
|Carmichael, Neil||Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)||Padley, Walter|
|Carter, Ray||Hooley, Frank||Palmer, Arthur|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Horam, John||Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Huckfield, Leslie||Parry, Robert|
|Cocks, Michael||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Pendry, Tom|
|Coleman, Donald||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Phipps, Dr. Colin|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hunter, Adam||Prescott, John|
|Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. EdgeHl)||Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)||Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jackson, Colin||Radice, Giles|
|Cronin, John||Janner, Greville||Reid, George|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cryer, G. R.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)||Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Dalyell, Tam||John, Brynmor||Roderick, Caerwyn E.|
|Davidson, Arthur||Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roper, John|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Deakins, Eric||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)||Kelley, Richard||Rowlands, Edward|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Kerr, Russell||Sandelson, Neville|
|Delargy, Hugh||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Sedgemore, Bryan|
|Dempsey, James||Kinnock, Neil||Selby, Harry|
|Doig, Peter||Lambie, David||Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lamborn, Harry||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lamond, James||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney & P'plar)|
|Dunn, James A.||Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Leadbitter, Ted||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lee, John||Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)|
|Edge, Geoff||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sillars, James|
|Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Silverman, Julius|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)||Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Small, William|
|English, Michael||Lipton, Marcus||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Ennals, David||Lomas, Kenneth||Snape, Peter|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Loughlin, Charles||Spearing, Nigel|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Loyden, Eddie||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)||McCartney, Hugh||Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)|
|MacCormack, Iain||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Urwin, T. W.||Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)|
|Stott, Roger||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Strang, Gavin||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)|
|Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Watkins, David||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Swain, Thomas||Watt, Hamish||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)|
|Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)||Weitzman, David||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)||Wellbeloved, James||Woodall, Alec|
|Tierney, Sydney||White, James||Woof, Robert|
|Tinn, James||Whitehead, Phillip||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Tomlinson, John||Whitlock, William||Young, David (Bolton, E.)|
|Tomney, Frank||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Torney, Tom||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)||Mr. J. D. Dormand and|
|Tuck, Raphael||Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)||Mr. Thomas Cox|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 9, leave out lines 29 and 30.—[Mr. Cyril Smith.]
|Division No. 75.]||AYES||[5.56 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Heath. Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Henderson. J.S.B.(Dunbartonshire. E.)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Heseltine. Michael|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead||Dixon, Piers||Higgins, Terence|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Holland, Philip|
|Ancram, M.||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir' Alec||Hordern, Peter|
|Archer, Jeffrey||Drayson, Burnaby||Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey, E.)|
|Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Durant, Tony||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)|
|Baker, Kenneth||Dykes, Hugh||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Hunt, John|
|Banks, Robert||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hurd, Douglas|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Elliott, Sir William||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Beith, A. J.||Emery, Peter||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bell, Ronald||Eyre, Reginald||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Fairgrieve, Russell||James, David|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)||Farr, John||Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)|
|Benyon, W.||Fell, Anthony||Jessel, Toby|
|Berry, Hon. Anthony||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Biffen, John||Fidler, Michael||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Blaker, Peter||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Jopling, Michael|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester. S.)||Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Body, Richard||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine|
|Boscawen, Hon. Robert||Fookes, Miss Janet||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)||Kimball, Marcus|
|Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)||Fox, Marcus||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Bray, Ronald||Freud. Clement||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Brittan, Leon||Fry, Peter||Knight, Mrs. Jill|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Knox, David|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)||Lamont, Norman|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)||Lane, David|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Buchanan-Smith, Allck||Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Buck, Antony||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Budgen, Nick||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Goodhart, Philip||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Burden, F. A.||Goodhew, Victor||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Goodlad, A.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Gorst, John||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Loveridge, John|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||MacArthur, Ian|
|Channon, Paul||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||McCrindle, R. A.|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Gray, Hamish||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Churchill, W. S.||Grieve, Percy||MacGregor, John|
|Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||McLaren, Martin|
|Clark, William (Croydon, S.)||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Grist, Ian||McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)|
|Clegg, Walter||Grylls, Michael||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)|
|Cockcroft, John||Gurden, Harold||Madel, David|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)||Hall, Sir John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Cope, John||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Mather, Carol|
|Cordle, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Maude, Angus|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hannam, John||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Corrie, John||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mawby, Ray|
|Costain, A. P.||Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Crouch, David||Hastings, Stephen||Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)|
|Crowder, F. P.||Havers, Sir Michael||Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT' bridge Wells)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Hawkins, Paul||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)|
§ Question put, That the amendment be made—:
§ The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 290.
|Mills, Peter||Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)||Taylor, Edward M. (Gigow, C'cart)|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Ridsdale, Julian||Tebbit, Norman|
|Moate, Roger||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Money, Ernie||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Monro, Hector||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)|
|Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Morgan, Geraint||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Townsend, C. D.|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Trotter, Neville|
|Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)||Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Royle, Sir Anthony||Tyler, Paul|
|Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)||Sainsbury, Tim||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Mudd, David||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Neave, Airey||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Viggers, Peter|
|Neubert, Michael||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Waddington, David|
|Newton, Tony (Braintree)||Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmer||Shersby, Michael||Wakeham, John|
|Nott, John||Silvester, Fred||Walder. David (Clitheroe)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Sims, Roger||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Sinclair, Sir George||Wall, Patrick|
|Osborn, John||Skeet, T. H. H.||Walters, Dennis|
|Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Pardoe, John||Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'm'ngton)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)||Spence, John||Wells, John|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Percival, Ian||Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Sproat, Iain||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Stainton, Keith||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Stanbrook, Ivor||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Prior, Rt. Hn. James||Stanley, John||Worsley, Sir Marcus|
|Quennell, Miss J. M.||Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)||Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)|
|Raison, Timothy||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Stokes, John||Mr. David Steel and|
|Redmond, Robert||Stradling Thomas, John||Dr. Michael Winstanely.|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)||Taverne, Dick|
|Abse, Leo||Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)||Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Allaun, Frank||Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)||Ford, Ben|
|Archer, Peter||Crawshaw, Richard||Forrester, John|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Cronin, John||Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)|
|Ashley, Jack||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)|
|Ashton, Joe||Cryer, G. R.||Freeson, Reginald|
|Atkins, Ronald||Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)||Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)|
|Bagler, Gordon A. T.||Dalyell, Tam||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Davidson, Arthur||George, Bruce|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)||Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)||Gilbert, Dr. John|
|Bates, Alf||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Ginsburg, David|
|Baxter, William||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Golding, John|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)||Deakins, Eric||Graham, Ted|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Bishop, E. S.||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Grant, John (Islington, C.)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Delargy, Hugh||Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)|
|Boardman, H.||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Booth, Albert||Dempsey, James||Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Doig, Peter||Hamling, William|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hardy, Peter|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Harper, Joseph|
|Bradley, Tom||Dunn, James A.||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Dunnett, Jack||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith|
|Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Hatton, Frank|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Edelman, Maurice||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney.S.&Sh'ditch)||Edge, Geoff||Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)|
|Buchan, Norman||Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)||Hooley, Frank|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow.Springb'rn||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)||Horam, John|
|Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)|
|Callaghan. Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)||English, Michael||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)||Ennals, David||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Campbell, Ian||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Cant, R. B.||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Evans, John (Newton)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Carter, Ray||Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)||Hunter, Adam|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray & Nairn)||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, EdgeHI)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Faulds, Andrew||Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Jackson, Colin|
|Cocks, Michael||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Janner, Greville|
|Cohen, Stanley||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Coleman, Donald||Flannery, Martin||Jeger, Mrs. Lena|
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N,||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W)||Morris Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Snape, Peter|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Moyle, Roland||Spearing, Nigel|
|Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Murray, Ronald King||Stallard, A. W.|
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Newens, Stanley (Harlow)||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Oakes, Gordon||Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)|
|Judd, Frank||Ogden, Eric||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Kelley. Richard||O'Halloran, Michael||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Kerr, Russell||O'Malley, Brian||Stott, Roger|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Orbach, Maurice||Strang, Gavin|
|Kinnock, Neil||Ovenden, John||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Lambie, David||Owen, Dr. David||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Lamborn, Harry||Padley, Walter||Swain, Thomas|
|Lamond, James||Palmer, Arthur||Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)|
|Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)||Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Parry, Robert||Tierney, Sydney|
|Lee, John||Pavitt, Laurie||Tinn, James|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Pendry, Tom||Tomlinson, John|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Perry, Ernest G.||Tomney, Frank|
|Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)||Phipps, Dr. Colin||Torney, Tom|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Prescott, John||Tuck, Raphael|
|Lipton, Marcus||Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Price, William (Rugby)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Radice, Giles||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)|
|Loyden, Eddie||Reid, George||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Richardson, Miss Jo||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Watkins, David|
|McCartney, Hugh||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Watt, Hamish|
|MacCormack, Iain||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Weitzman, David|
|McElhone, Frank||Roderick, Caerwyn E.||Wellbeloved, James|
|MacFarquhar, Roderick||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||White, James|
|McGuire, Michael||Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Rooker, J. W.||Whitlock, William|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roper, John||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Rose, Paul B.||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Madden, M. O. F.||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)|
|Magee, Bryan||Rowlands, Edward||Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)|
|Mahon, Simon||Sandelson, Neville||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Sedgemore, Bryan||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Marks, Kenneth||Selby, Harry||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)|
|Marquand, David||Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)|
|Meacher, Michael||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney&P'plar)||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)||Woodall, Alec|
|Mendelson, John||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)||Woof, Robert|
|Mikardo, Ian||Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)||Young, David (Bolton, E.)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Sillars, James|
|Molloy, William||Silverman, Julius||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Moonman, Eric||Skinner, Dennis|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Small, William||Mr. J. D. Dormand and|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||Mr. Thomas Cox.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)
I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 9, line 38, at end add:'( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any act done by a person if at the time of doing the act—
- (a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract with a person whether or not that other person is a party to the trade dispute;
- (b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is knowingly to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and
- (c) that other person is an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute.( ) For the purposes of this section a person shall be regarded as an extraneous party in relation to the trade dispute if
- (a) he is not a party to that dispute, and
- (b) he has not, in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute, taken any action in material support of a party to it.( ) A person shall not be regarded for the purposes of this section as a party to a trade dispute or as having taken action as mentioned in subsection ( )(b) of this section by reason only that he—This amendment would limit the immunity of either of the parties or a single party taking industrial action in a trade dispute. It closely resembles Section 98 of the 1971 Act.
- (a) is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the trade dispute, or
- (b) is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the trade dispute is also a member, or
- (c) has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief in respect of losses incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the dispute, where the fund was established, and his contribution to it was paid, without specific reference to that trade dispute, or
- (d) supplies goods to, or provides services for, a party to the trade dispute in pursuance of a contract entered into before the trade
1607 dispute began, or is a party to such a contract under which he is or may be required to supply goods to, or provide services for, a party to the trade dispute '.
As drafted, the Bill affords immunity on a much wider basis, as became abundantly clear during the debate on Amendment No. 80 and the associated group of amendments. The quotation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made from Mr. Campbell Adamson's letter in The Times made that only too clear. Indeed, there has never been a ministerial denial that the stated range of immunities set out in that letter did not represent the effect of the present Bill.
This widening of the area of immunity becomes all the more important now that society has become so dependent on certain crucial industries or services. For example, we have seen how vital the power stations are to the life of the nation. During the miners' dispute in 1972, the oil-fired power stations were picketed, but they were in no way involved in the dispute. Nevertheless, the miners were able to establish effective pickets over the oil-fired power stations and exert a pressure upon the community.
The amendment would help to remove immunity from action of that kind. When one sees how dependent the nation is on services such as the power stations, one wonders which workers in future may follow this example and attempt to have their own dispute resolved in their favour by operating in a similar way upon the jugular vein of our society, the power stations. Will ASLEF, in pursuit of a claim by the engine drivers, do this? Could other unions or groups seek to use the power station lever? I have no doubt that there are other equally powerful levers within society which, if used, could exert very powerful pressure on the resolution of a dispute.
We believe that some limits are needed because as Clause 10 now stands no limits of any kind are set upon the immunities available to those who are involved in action in pursuit or furtherance of an industrial dispute.
1608 Can the Secretary of State or the Minister of State at this late stage do what they did not do during the Committee stage and show that there are some limits? Will they acknowledge this openly? The Secretary of State began to move in this direction in his contribution to the previous debate when he made it clear that there was a substantial extension of immunities involved in Clause 10. If that is the position—there is no doubt in my mind that it is so—what is the justification for it?
In a rather specious manner the Secretary of State tried to call in aid the Donovan Report during the earlier debate when speaking of the deletion of the words "of employment". That is only part of the story. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole of the Donovan Report, and particularly paragraph 894 referred to by my right hon. Friend, he will see that it is clear that he, the Secretary of State, was misrepresenting the Donovan argument. He may have been using Donovan's words, but the message was pure Wedderburn. It was a misrepresentation of Donovan.
The clause seeks to make lawful action against innocent third parties who have no connection with the dispute. What do we see? Yesterday we saw the Government with a majority of one—a pretty suspect majority of one at that—upholding its view that the rights and privileges of the strong unions had to be sustained while the safeguards and protections for the individual were being demolished, albeit only for a time, and the individual left defenceless.
What is today's message from the Treasury Bench? It is that the Secretary of State is defending the principle of the use of the innocent hostage—chosen at random and without blame; someone who has no connection with the dispute—and using pressure on that person to get at the community at large. This is the rôle of the terrorist dealing with hostages. What is the distinction in principle between selecting an innocent bystander, who is used to bring pressure for some purpose, and doing what the clause allows to be done in the name of industrial action when people are involved who have no connection with the dispute?
1609 As we seen it, the message from this minority Labour Government is an invitation to take industrial action against third parties—whether they be vital services or essential industries or the vulnerable and innocent—in order to achieve an industrial end often in the interests of the strong. How revealing was the comment of the Secretary of State, as he moved to his peroration, when he said that his concern was with trade union rights—not the community interests, but trade union rights. Surely if the clause goes through unamended and unchanged he will be pursuing what he says is his objective of merely being concerned about trade union rights.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Foot
I have never in any circumstances said that I was merely and solely concerned with trade union rights. Certainly I said that I was concerned with trade union rights. There is no apology to be made on that account. I never in any circumstances said that I was solely concerned with trade union rights. I am concerned because trade union rights in my opinion form an essential part of a civilised community.
§ Mr. Hayhoe
One accepts what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think he has got the balance entirely wrong in that he gives pre-eminence to his pursuit of what he described as essential trade union rights over the general interests of the community and, as we saw yesterday, over safeguards for the individual.
If one can quote the source of inspiration so apparent in the Bill—Professor Wedderburn—he in some ways provided, in his letter to The Times of 12th June, a solution to this argument because he made it clear in a very revealing paragraph, which he put in italics, halfway through his letter that the protection provided by the law should be restricted to thoseacting in furtherance or contemplation of their trade dispute"—in furtherance not of "a" trade dispute but of "their" trade dispute, one in which they are involved. Our amendment would achieve just that.
It is for those reasons and with the support of Professor Wedderburn, at least if he meant what he said in that passage 1610 of his letter to The Times, that I commend the amendment to the House.
§ Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) on the lucidity with which he moved the amendment and in particular upon the fact that he elicited from the Secretary of State clarification of his position on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman said he considered trade union rights fundamental in a democratic community. I do not think anyone would complain about that or challenge it. What we all notice and what distresses us is that there is no mention—or only very rarely is the subject allowed to occur—of any reflected or accompanying obligation.
The trade union movement has enormous rights conferred upon it. The Government say that they are concerned to safeguard these rights and see that they are well founded in law, but very little attention is given by the Government to the accompanying obligation to the community as a whole, and particularly to the individual. There can be no doubt that all Members on the Opposition side consider that the immunity goes too far. It is a screen behind which any tort can be committed as long as there is in existence a more or less relevant industrial dispute. I submit that this leaves the individual in a hopeless position.
My hon. Friend said that once he gets caught up in one of these fearful power struggles the individual, who finds it difficult enough to manage a business, will find himself squeezed into a corner by a giant. There will be no escape for him from the pressures that can be put upon him.
I am certain that the General Council of the TUC would be the very first to regret any abuse of the enormous privileges here conferred upon the trade union movement. I am equally certain that it will have no power whatever to control its own members in detail in action taken in the field in circumstances sometimes of bad temper and of strong feeling. I have always felt that the whole of the Bill suffered from the fact that the Government, acting under instructions, had got the whole thing lopsided. They are giving the trade union movement powers which it could do without and they are denying it powers, which it 1611 badly needs, to give trade union leaders real power over their members, which they badly lack at present.
I echo what has been said by my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth—namely, that society has become far more vulnerable. There are certain nodal points at which, if pressure is brought to bear, society faces the most odious of all purposes. The previous administration, of which I was a member, certainly learned this lesson in its bitter depths. Once pressure is exerted upon the power stations, directly or indirectly, and once pressure is exerted on fresh water supplies or the movement of sewage, civilised life comes to a halt.
It was not always so. This has happened only over the past 20 or 30 years. As recently as the time of the last war, fresh water and sewage were moved by all kinds of agencies. Today the one source of movement of fresh water is electricity. Therefore, any threat to electricity is a threat to the life of the community. If that threat is pushed through, it carries with it a possibility of damage to the community which may well be irreparable and would inflict tremendous damage on not just one or two isolated industries but everyone in this country, including millions of trade unionists, There would be devastation from which it is very hard to see a recovery.
In this place every now and again one hears a bit of hyperbole being engaged in, but it is exceedingly hard to exaggerate the effect upon the community if things got really out of hand and pressures were exerted which could not be restrained and action were taken which denied to the community those things upon which its very life depended. The alternative is that Governments give way.
I hope the Secretary of State appreciates that in taking away the rights of the individual, as he is doing in the Bill, he is increasing the possibility of that state of affairs coming to pass. I wonder whether we in this House reflect often enough upon the real weakness of government. We are very much over-impressed by its trappings and by the fact that it has all gone on for a rather long time, but only too seldom do we face—and then, perhaps, for only a disagreeable period when we cannot escape from it—the bitter question of where power has got 1612 to. Only too often the answer to that question is that it has got into the hands of someone who is near to a switch or a tap which controls vital supplies and that people in that position might not be immediately responsive to the instructions or the advice of responsible trade union leaders—far from it.
I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, to what extent does he believe that the ordinary citizen is remotely aware of what he is doing today? Second, what kind of mandate can he claim for this measure by a Government who do not have a majority at all?
I can hear echoes of the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman over all the years that I have been in Parliament. I can see him standing, very rightly, for the rights and liberties of the individual and, because of those rights and liberties, the rights of Parliament. But here is Parliament behaving in a craven way and betraying the individual whose rights we should be safeguarding. This is a real case of were I Brutus and Brutus Antony, what would I then say to the right hon. Gentleman? If he were standing here today and some such thing were being proposed by some limp, feeble orator like me, I should be crushed by the venom and invective which he would unleash on behalf of one of his favourite causes—the individual, the rights of Parliament and a free society. The right hon. Gentleman is today dealing them an almost lethal blow.
§ Sir Raymond Gower
My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has not overstated this matter. The Secretary of State laughs at that remark. He was quite right—no one on the Opposition side of the House would dissent from the correctness of his statement—when he expressed profound concern for the rights of trade unions. We are all attached to the right to withhold labour, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing not merely the right to withhold labour in a trade dispute in a particular industry or service but how far the frontiers of that right should extend beyond a particular dispute. The Bill as drafted does not circumscribe that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said, we want to see a position in which 1613 there will be a limit to the immunity which people who engage in these disputes may enjoy. I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will realise what they may be doing. It may be that a future Labour Government will be embarrassed by it.
Again there is laughter on the Government Front Bench. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that a post-war Government in Australia were destroyed in the late 1940s. I think that it was the Chiffley Government. They were completely destroyed by the excesses of trade unions in Australia which they had no legislative power to control. If the Government do not preserve some limits to this kind of immunity, a future Labour Government may be destroyed in the same way.
I am convinced that in the next decade a Government of some colour or combination of parties will have to legislate to make some limit to these immunities. Our society's economic arrangements are such that those who are completely unconnected with the immediate factors in a dispute can hold the country to ransom. I am certain that we Conservatives have the Liberals on our side in this matter. I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) will be able to confirm that. This is just as much a Liberal cause as was the fight for individuals by Liberals in the last century.
But the wheel has gone round too far. I admit that the big power was too much on one side a few decades ago. Then it was the small man, the individual or the trade unionist, by seeking a combination, who was seeking strength—and not without reason. But the wheel has now gone right round and there is probably a majority of people in Britain who have not perhaps made up their minds but who are extremely apprehensive about the trends revealed by the Government's attitude today.
I hope that the Government will think again. I should like them to accept the amendment. If they do not, I hope that we shall divide upon it and that there will be a majority in favour of it.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)
The effect of the amendment would be to remove the protection for acts in con 1614 templation or furtherance of a trade dispute or industrial action against third parties. As the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) has fairly pointed out, it is basically an attempt to re-enact Section 98 of the 1971 Act. I therefore have a simple question to put to the House, which should be answered before we decide whether to attempt, albeit in a form more appropriate to this Bill, to re-enact Section 98 of the 1971 Act.
The question stems not from my consideration of the position but from the consideration put to the House by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth. He said a few moments ago that in the recent miners' dispute members of the National Union of Mineworkers picketed power stations, which was a very serious matter. It was certainly a case of trade unionists acting against a third party. The Central Electricity Generating Board was not involved in that dispute. The hon. Gentleman asked how the Bill would operate in those circumstances. I put it to the hon. Gentleman: how did the 1971 Act, embracing as it does Section 98, operate in those circumstances? Did it stop miners picketing the power stations? Did it result in the Central Electricity Generating Board taking the NUM to court for a breach of contract? Of course it did not. If we are talking about concern for third parties, we have to say what can be done in practice to deal with this problem.
§ Mr. Booth
I am grateful to the light hon. Gentleman for that question because I want to deal with the question of employers when they are third parties. First of all, however, I want to deal with the original point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Section 98 of the 1971 Act and Amendment No. 81, which we agree deal with the same subject, are concerned mainly with blacking or secondary boycott. The 1971 Act dealt with blacking or secondary boycotting against anyone who was supplying goods or services but who was not a party to a dispute. The amendment would remove the protection of Clause 10 from the unions and would 1615 enable the employer who was a third party and was not involved in the dispute to sue the union concerned. We on this side of the House believe that there are many circumstances in which boycotts could be legal. We believe that it is necessary to use boycotts in order properly to prosecute certain disputes.
It might be useful if I cited a practical example of a threat to induce a breach of contract on a third party. This is a case which led to legal action. I refer to D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. v. Deakin. At that time D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. ran a non-union shop, and to the best of my knowledge it still does. That company sacked a man because he joined NATSOPA, which might be referred to as an appropriate trade union. The union, or a group of men employed by Bowaters Paper Ltd., which supplied paper to D. C. Thomson, said to the employers that they might not be prepared to deliver paper. I remember the ringing tones of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) when he referred to "wretched individuals squeezed in the corner by a giant." I thought about that man who had the audacity to join NATSOPA and the treatment that he received at the hands of D. C. Thomson. I do not think that is the sort of case that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but I hope it helps to set in proper context this business of what is an appropriate way to deal with secondary boycotts.
§ Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)
Is it not the case that under the 1971 Act there was a right of redress against the dismissal of a man for belonging to a trade union? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it is more desirable that there should be a dispute and a strike with consequent loss of production than to find a civilised and sensible way of settling a dispute as to whether a man should belong to a trade union?
§ Mr. Booth
No. If I wanted to argue that point I would not be quoting this case; I might be quoting the Con-Mech case. I am staying with this case for the time being. I am citing the case in order to demonstrate, in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, that if we are talking in terms of protecting wretched individuals squeezed in corners by giants, 1616 the action taken by trade unions in blacking or imposing secondary boycotts can be one of the ways in which unions can defend people.
§ Mr. Peyton
What I was concerned with was this. In the Bill the Government are concerned to sweep away from the path of anybody who is prosecuting a dispute any tiresome restrictions which may otherwise be imposed upon him. The Government at the same time are giving no thought at all to the rights of innocent people who may suffer terribly, and quite incidentally, as a result of the prosecution of that dispute.
§ Mr. Booth
I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman. The process which he described is the very reverse of the process which we adopt in the Bill and particularly in this clause. What we are concerned about in this clause is that trade unions should have the minimum power necessary in order effectively to exercise rights on behalf of those who are members of a union. That is not to say that we are not concerned about people who may suffer as a consequence. We are extremely concerned about them. That is why I want to come to what I think is a far better way of looking after those people who suffer as a consequence than the method which has been proved to be ineffective by the operation of the 1971 Act.
§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Dunbartonshire, East)
Is not the hon. Gentleman saying that if armed robbery takes place on a sufficiently massive scale it is stupid to have an Act which will stop it?
§ Mr. Booth
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if armed robbery took place on a sufficiently massive scale it would be necessary to have legislation to deal with it effectively. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to use that analogy, that is what I am saying; it is not my analogy. I am saying that Section 98 was ineffective in stopping blacking or secondary boycotting. In fact, those who could have used the law and could have had recourse to Section 98 did not use it to bring actions against trade unions in order to protect individuals.
Therefore, we have to find a way which is effective in dealing with this problem and a way which recognises that there can be instances in which the only proper course open to a trade union in a dispute 1617 is to resort to blacking or to the secondary boycott. It is not, of course, undertaken lightly by unions, because it has disadvantages for them and for their membership as well as to the third party who suffers from the blacking or secondary boycott. Employers who are directly engaged in the business of negotiations with trade unions are very rarely enthusiastic for the idea of prosecuting unions which black them or subject them to secondary boycott. The kind of case I cited of D. C. Thomson and Co. Ltd. which brought an action against union officials is a very rare case. One has to look very far for such cases.
The effect of the amendment, however, would be to provide an inducement to certain people who would not have to live with trade union organisations afterwards. I do not want to cite current cases on this but it is obvious from modern experience that this consideration of whether one has to live with a union afterwards after having taken it to court for legal action is uppermost in people's minds. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the small number of cases in which such legal actions are brought a very high proportion usually involve people who are determined in any case not to have any union organisation connected with them, such as D. C. Thomson or people unlikely to be employing trade unionists following such action. The Donovan Commission applied considerable time to this issue.
§ Sir Raymond Gower
Does not the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between a situation in which one can say "This law which we have made is somewhat difficult to apply" and, alternatively, enshrining in an Act of Parliament a kind of invitation to people to say "This is something to which Parliament and the Government have no objection at all, framing an Act of Parliament so that apparently Parliament and the Government of the day do not deem this to be at all undesirable? Does the hon. Gentleman draw any distinction between the two?
§ Mr. Booth
I am sorry that for once in our debates the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is not present, because he would have come to my aid and pointed out that there is a great difference between conferring a right 1618 and enforcing a law, and that what is proposed here is to confer a right on people who are subjected to blacking or secondary boycott to bring an action against somebody. Whether or not that will be effective does not depend solely on whether Parliament passes the amendment. Secondly, however, even if we passed it, it would depend on whether people were prepared to bring such actions. What I am seeking to adduce at this point is that a majority of employers who are subjected to secondary boycott or blacking are not prepared to engage in those actions.
The amendment would put at risk virtually all sympathetic action against third parties which resulted in a failure to perform any comercial contract. In the 1971 Act the idea of the extraneous party was enunciated to describe the third party who should have the right to bring an action against those who blacked him, and to make a distinction between him and those who were seen to be properly involved in the dispute with the employer. But the definition of the extraneous party attaching to the amendment is so wide that it would enable an employer who was financing a dispute or legal action which was being conducted by another employer to have the protection of this procedure, so far as it has any protective effects.
I agree—I come very close to the views of one or two Opposition Members—that damage to the community which can result from strikes or from blacking or secondary boycott in modern terms can be of enormous consequence to the community. It is evidently the case that modern technological development in services frequently puts a very small number of people in a position that their action or their refusal to act can do enormous damage to the capital equipment of the country and to important services on which many people depend. Therefore, it is proper in the context of the amendment, having argued on the one hand that it will not be effective, nevertheless to address myself to the proper concern that has been expressed upon it.
In relation to that, one must ask how we are to deal with this problem. I would argue that we cannot deal with it by saying that those who will prosecute the secondary boycott or blacking must 1619 be locked up in gaol or be subjected to legal action. That has never proved to be an effective solution. Even during the war, when the State had Draconian powers by comparison with the 1971 Act or this Bill, it was not possible by locking up the Betteshanger miners to ensure that that mine was worked. It could be argued that those miners were doing enormous damage to the community and denying the country essential fuel in the course of a war, when the country's existence was at stake.
I believe that the way in which the problem will be solved, the way the man who pulls a lever or turns a tap will be seen to be accountable to the whole community and engaged in consideration of the wider interest of the community, in concert with a very great number of trade unionists, is if we provide to the union of which he is a member a facility for resolving its problems without recourse to strike, blacklegging or secondary boycott. That is the way I hope the House will look at the amendment and the Bill, not as something isolated but as part of a wider policy for dealing with this problem.
I hope the House will recognise that we are introducing the Bill at virtually the same time as we introduce a conciliation and advisory service. We have made quite clear to the House that we hope to go on to enact further legislation which will put that conciliation and advisory service on a statutory basis. We believe that it is in this way that we will see an end to the need for strikes, blacking and secondary boycotts in a great many instances.
We believe that it is in that way that a solution will come about. To attempt, however, to bring it about by encouraging employers to take unions to court, by saying that the State must have power to deal with these people, is to try to turn back the clock. That would be to go back to a solution which has been tried and found wanting. I hope, therefore, that the House will recognise that while we are asking for the amendment to be withdrawn or, if not withdrawn, rejected by the House, it is not because we are unconcerned but because we believe that the correct solution is one which enables the matter to be resolved, recognising that there are instances where the 1620 action is one which should properly be protected by law and that we must remove the causes and the number of occasions on which such actions are justified by a far more civilised means.
§ Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)
The Minister of State spoke about arbitration and conciliation machinery which is to be set up by a Bill. It is all very well to plead that in aid of throwing out an amendment. It is rather difficult to agree with the hon. Gentleman if one does not know what the plans are. Can he tell us exactly what that miraculous Bill is to provide that will avoid these difficulties?
§ Mr. Booth
It would be very difficult to plead that in order to dispose of the amendment if we believed that the amendment would be effective, but I have explained that I do not believe it would be effective because the absolutely parallel provision in the existing law has not been effective. We are not relying on the introduction of the Employment Protection Bill for the introduction of the conciliation and arbitration service. A large part of that service could be put into operation by administrative means, and we intend that that should be done.
§ Mr. Booth
We intend that the House should be able to examine a number of proposals in connection with the CAS very shortly. Certainly the planning within the Department to put these proposals before the House is in a very advanced state. In the meantime, of course, we seek to use such conciliation facilities as the Department has, and these are considerable. Such facilities have improved along lines which will be completely compatible with the introduction of the CAS. We are not therefore saying that the House should choose between the CAS and the amendment. Our proposition is that the CAS would be required in any event and that it might be required more and would be a lot less effective if the amendment were carried.
Mr. Leon Britton (Cleveland and Whitby)
I was listening with bated breath for the conclusion of the Minister of State's observation to discover what would be the magic alternative which would deal with the ill which he appeared 1621 to recognise existed and which he said the amendment would not cover.
We already have on the statute book legislation which, if it had been used by the trade union movement in the spirit in which it was originally intended, would have provided alternative ways of solving disputes without recourse to strikes and boycotts. In view of that, it is ironic for the Minister to say that the only way to deal with the problem is to pass the Bill unamended and to live in hope that the conciliation and arbitration service, a statutory body which has no teeth, will effectively cope with industrial disputes which a stronger Act containing fairer and firmer provisions has been unable to deal with.
It is a complete contradiction in terms to expect that to occur at some unspecified date in the future. Indeed a third party, who stands to benefit from the amendment, will have no power to req 'tire the parties to a dispute to avail themselves of the CAS. Still less will he have any power to make sure that they accept the solution recommended by the service however cogent and reasonable it might be. We are left with the real problem of innocent third parties. It is always possible to envisage hypothetical situations in which the third party is not as innocent as all that, but that is not always the case and it is always possible to envisage a situation in which the remedy put forward by the clause would be of no avail, but that is not always the case either.
The Minister of State prayed in aid of his argument the recent miners' dispute and spoke of the electricity workers being a characteristic example of people engaged in action against a third party. To present the analogy of a major nationalised industry in confrontation with its work force as being typical of the economy and industrial disputes as a whole is a complete misconception. Far more typical is the situation in which the small employer is faced with a strike. Whereas it might be contrary to national policy as conceived, rightly or wrongly, by the Government of the day to use the sort of weapon which would be available if the amendment were made, it does
|Division No. 76.]||AYES||[6.56 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Awdry, Daniel|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Ancram, M.||Baker, Kenneth|
§ not follow that a private employer would be reluctant to do so. For that reason I suggest that the Minister's analogy is wholly false and does not dispose of the argument.
§ Nor is the argument defeated by the fact that the provision appears in a similar form in the 1971 Act. I am sure the Minister of State accepts that the purpose of the legislation is not to lead through the courts a string of successful litigants who are able to operate the clause and obtain judgment as a result but rather to make it unnecessary for litigation to take place because the majority of people know what the law is and accept it and are prepared to abide by it.
§ Therefore, unless the Minister of State says that the trade union movement simply will not obey the law, has not obeyed the law and does not propose to obey any law which is passed, it follows that a law of this kind, if passed, would have a salutary effect on all but an intolerant minority involved in highly publicised cases which grab the headlines.
§ It was even said during the passage of the Race Relations Act that the purpose of the law was not simply to provide a solution for people for whom that was the only way out. The purpose was rather to encourage by education and other means conformity with the law by the vast majority of people. Thus, although that method will not always work—of course there will be disputes which are too large to be dealt with in this way, and of course there will be examples when the person who seems able to invoke the law does not immediately engage the sympathy of the community—as a small ancillary measure designed to ease the situation which at present afflicts us the amendment has a useful rôle to play and should be incorporated in the Bill.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 292
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David||Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)|
|Banks, Robert||Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)||Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge WelIs)|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Beith. A. J.||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)|
|Bell, Ronald||Goodhart, Philip||Mills, Peter|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Goodhew, Victor||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)||Goodlad, A.||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Benyon, W.||Gorst, John||Moate, Roger|
|Berry, Hon. Anthony||Gow. Ian (Eastbourne)||Money, Ernie|
|Bitten. John||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Monro, Hector|
|Blggs-Davison, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)|
|Blaker, Peter||Gray, Hamish||Morgan, Geraint|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)||Grieve, Percy||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.|
|Body, Richard||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)|
|Boscawen, Hon. Robert||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Bowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)||Grist, Ian||Morrison. Peter (City of Chester)|
|Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)||Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David|
|Bralne, Sir Bernard||Gurden, Harold||Neave, Airey|
|Bray, Ronald||Hall, Sir John||Neubert, Michael|
|Brewis, John||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Newton, Tony (Braintree)|
|Brittan, Leon||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Hannam, John||Nott, John|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. Miss||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Osborn, John|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Havers, Sir Michael||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)|
|Buck, Antony||Hawkins, Paul||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Budgen, Nick||Hayhoe, Barney||Pardoe, John|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)|
|Burden, F. A.||Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Heseltine, Michael||Percival, Ian|
|Carlisle, Mark||Higgins, Terence||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Holland, Philip||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Hordern, Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)||Prior, Rt. Hn. James|
|Channon, Paul||Howell, David (Guildford)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)||Raison, Timothy|
|Churchill, W. S.||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hunt, John||Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Clark, William (Croydon, S.)||Hurd, Douglas||Redmond, Robert|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Cockcroft, John||Iremonger, T. L.||Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't' gd' ns' re)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)|
|Cope, John||James, David||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Cordle, John||Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std & W'fd)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jessel, Toby||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Corrie, John||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)|
|Costain, A. P.||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Crouch, David||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Crowder, F. P.||Jopling, Michael||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutslord)||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen. James||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)|
|Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Kershaw, Anthony||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Kimball, Marcus||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Dixon, Piers||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Douglas-Home, Pt. Hn Sir Alec||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Knox, David||Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Lamont, Norman||Shersby, Michael|
|Durant, Tony||Lane, David||Silvester, Fred|
|Dykes, Hugh||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Sims, Roger|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lawrence, Ivan||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Elliott, Sir William||Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Emery, Peter||Le Marchant, Spencer||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Spence, John|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)||Splcer, Jim (Dorset, W.)|
|Farr, John||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)||Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)|
|Fell, Anthony||Loveridge, John||Sproat, Iain|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||MacArthur, Ian||Stainton, Keith|
|Fidler, Michael||McCrindle, R. A.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Stanley, John|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||MacGregor, John||Steel, David|
|Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)||McLaren, Martin||Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)||Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Stokes, John|
|Fox, Marcus||Madel, David||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Taverne, Dick|
|Freud, Clement||Mather, Carol||Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'carl)|
|Fry, Peter||Maude, Angus||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Tebblt, Norman|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate&Banstead)||Mawby, Ray||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)||Wakeham, John||Winstanley, Dr. Michael|
|Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy||Walder, David (Clitheroe)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Townsend, C. D.||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Trotter, Neville||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Tugendhat, Christopher||Wall, Patrick||Worsley, Sir Marcus|
|Tyler, Paul||Walters, Dennis||Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.||Warren, Kenneth|
|Vaughan, Dr. Gerard||Weatherill, Bernard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Viggors, Peter||Wells, John||Mr. Walter Clegg and|
|Waddington, David||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William||Mr. John Stradling Thomas.|
|Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)||Wiggln, Jerry|
|Abse, Leo||Dunnett, Jack||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Allaun, Frank||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)|
|Archer, Peter||Edelman, Maurice||Judd, Frank|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Edge, Geoff||Kelley, Richard|
|Ashley, Jack||Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)||Kerr, Russell|
|Atkins. Ronald||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Atkinson, Norman||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||English, Michael||Lambie, David|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ennals, David||Lamborn, Harry|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Lamond, James|
|Bates, Alf||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Latham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)|
|Baxter, William||Evans, John (Newton)||Lawson, George (Mothorwell & Wishaw)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)||Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&Nairn)||Lee, John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Faulds, Andrew||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)|
|Boardman, H.||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Booth, Albert||Flannery, Martin||Lipton, Marcus|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael||Loyden, Eddie|
|Bradley, Tom||Ford, Ben||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Forrester, John||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)|
|Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)||Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||MacCormack, Iain|
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)||Freeson, Reginald||McElhone, Frank|
|Buchan, Norman||Galpern, Sir Myer||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn||Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)||McGuire, Michael|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James (Cardiff, S.E.)||George, Bruce||Maclennan, Robert|
|Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)||Gilbert, Dr. John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Campbell, Ian||Ginsburg, David||McNamara, Kevin|
|Cant, R. B.||Golding, John||Madden, M. O. F.|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gourlay, Harry||Magee, Bryan|
|Carter, Ray||Graham, Ted||Mahon, Simon|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Grant, John (Islington, C.)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)||Marquand, David|
|Cocks, Michael||Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)||Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hamling. William||Meacher, Michael|
|Coleman, Donald||Hardy, Peter||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.||Harper, Joseph||Mendelson, John|
|Conlan, Bernard||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Millan, Bruce|
|Cox, Thomas||Hatton, Frank||Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Heffer, Eric S.||Molloy, William|
|Cronin, John||Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)||Moonman, Eric|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hooley, Frank||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Horam, John||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Cryer, G. R.||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)||Huckfield, Leslie||Moyle, Roland|
|Cunningham, Dr. John A.(Whiteh'v'n)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Murray, Ronald King|
|Davidson, Arthur||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)||Newens, Stanley (Harlow)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Oakes, Gordon|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Hunter, Adam||Ogden, Eric|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I, EdgeHl)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Deakins, Eric||Jackson, Colin||Orbach, Maurice|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)||Janner, Greville||Ovenden, John|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Owen, Dr. David|
|Delargy, Hugh||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Padley, Walter|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Dempsey, James||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)||Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)|
|Doig, Peter||John, Brynmor||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Dormand, J. O.||Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)||Parry, Robert|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Pendry, Tom|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Dunn, James A.||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Phipps, Dr. Colin|
|Prescott, John||Silverman, Julius||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)||Skinner, Dennis||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Price, William (Rugby)||Small, William||Watkins, David|
|Radice, Giles||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||Watt, Hamish|
|Reid, George||Snape, Peter||Weitzman, David|
|Richardson, Miss Jo||Spearing, Nigel||Wellbeloved, James|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Spriggs, Leslie||White, James|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Stallard, A. W.||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Robertson, John (Paisley)||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)||Whitlock, William|
|Roderick, Caerwyn E.||Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'st'[...], Fulh'm)||Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)|
|Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Rooker, J. W.||Stott, Roger||Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)|
|Roper, John||Strang, Gavin||Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)|
|Rose, Paul B.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Rowlands, Edward||Swain, Thomas||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)|
|Sandelson, Neville||Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Sedgemore, Bryan||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)|
|Selby, Harry||Tierney, Sydney||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)||Tinn, James||Woodall, Alec|
|Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Tomlinson, John||Woof, Robert|
|Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney & P'plar)||Tomney, Frank||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)||Torney, Tom||Young, David (Bolton, E.)|
|Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N.E.)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)||Urwin, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Sillars, James||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)||Mr. Laurie Pavitt.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.