§ Provisions applied and Modifications
§ 1. Section 13(1) (various powers).
- (a) Paragraph (b) shall be omitted;
- (b) references to the Commission or the Secretary of State shall be read as references to the appropriate Agricultural Minister, so however that references to the Commission's functions shall be read as references to the functions of that Minister under the relevant statutory provisions in relation to matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes.
§ 2. Section 14 (power to direct investigations and inquiries).
- (a) References to the Commission shall be read as references to the appropriate Agriculture Minister;
- (b) in subsection (1), the reference to the general purposes of Part I shall be read as a reference to the relevant agricultural purposes;
- (c) in subsection (2), for the words from "direct" to "other" in paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the words "authorise any", the words "with the consent of the Secretary of State" shall be omitted, and for the words from "only matters" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "matters relating exclusively to the relevant agricultural purposes";
§ Mr. Harold Walker
The amendments made in another place which I am now asking this House to disagree with completely reverse amendments which this House agreed should be made on Report.
812 In our previous discussions about the application of the Bill to safety and health in agriculture, a lot of comments were made about U-turns, changes of mind and so on. If this House now accepts these amendments, and thus reverses its previous decision, I can only say that we shall have gone around an S-bend. But let me set the record to date straight as briefly as I can.
In our debate on Second Reading seven hon. Members—other than myself—specifically mentioned the special provisions for agriculture which the Bill then contained: three spoke from this side; four spoke from the Opposition benches, including the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. All those speakers, without exception, either queried or criticised the existence in the Bill of the special provisions for agriculture—a remarkable display of the bipartisan attitude that this House can adopt when it is considering matters on their merits.
Next, in Standing Committee amendments to delete those special provisions were tabled in the name of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. They were withdrawn only upon my giving assurances that there would be further consultations on the matter between the Ministers most concerned, and with the organisations most concerned, before Report stage.
As a result of further consultations, amendments to delete the special provisions for agriculture were re-tabled on Report, this time as Government amendments. They were approved by this House without a Division.
That, in a nutshell, is the history of the proceedings in this House—a chain of events which started right at the beginning of our proceedings, and during which the House steadily moved towards a clear decision—a clear decision which was in accord with the impartial views of many outside organisations with no vested interests to protect. That clear decision was reversed in another place last week. This House now has the opportunity to re-assert its decision—a decision that it came to by way of a classic demonstration of the way that our legislative procedure works at its best.
The House will not want me to rehearse all of the arguments about health and safety in agriculture yet again. I will try 813 to summarise the substance of the matter as briefly as I can. Let me go right to the heart of it straight away. The Government have tabled this motion because they consider that these amendments are destructive of one of the fundamental objectives of the Bill—that is, the integration of responsibility for health and safety problems in all industry under a new organisation solely devoted to health and safety. Let me stress that this is not a matter of administrative tidiness. It is a question of giving health and safety probelms the status and priority they deserve, as a distinct entity not subordinated to other questions affecting the operations of industry, and not to be treated as a Cinderella in the scale of priorities.
The amendments made in another place seek to preserve the fragmentation, the sectional departmental interests, which the Robens Report criticised and which the Bill is designed to change. It is for those who have welcomed this Bill, and have supported it as a major step forward, to decide what should be done about amendments which are hostile to the central purpose and rationale of the Bill. It is for those who would support these amendments to explain why the Bill should not apply to agriculture in the same way as it applies to all the other different industries, each of which has its own unique features. It is for them to explain why it is only in relation to agriculture that the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Commission and its Executive should be restricted. It is for them to explain why the existence of a Ministry of Agriculture, responsible for the industry generally, should influence the realignment of health and safety responsibilities and priorities which the Bill seeks to achieve.
I say it is for them to explain and justify these things because, in fact, such case as there ever was for making special provisions for agriculture did not rest, and never has rested, upon any intrinsic differences in the nature of the industry's safety problems. The case—I admit that it was at first accepted by the Government—rested upon the organisational difficulties of enforcing safety requirements in a very widely dispersed industry.
Two things have now undermined that original case. First, the Government have accepted the validity of the criticisms 814 levelled against the original special provisions for agriculture both inside and outside Parliament—namely, that they did not deal solely with the organisational problem but went far beyond it in creating a special preserve for the Ministry of Agriculture, which is not an organisation concerned solely with health and safety.
Secondly, the Government have proposed a solution to the organisational problem, a solution which, unlike these amendments, does not leave safety and health in agriculture out of the main stream of the progress which the Bill provides for. This solution is that the Agricultural Departments should carry out enforcement functions on behalf of the Commission and its Executive, and to its specifications, on an agency basis, which indeed is what the Robens Report recommended.
Earlier, I explained that the Bill enabled the Commission and the Agricultural Departments to make an agreed agency arrangement whereby the expertise of the field officers of the Agriculture Departments would continue to be utilised on safety enforcement duties.
It was objected that this would mean that field officers of the Agriculture Departments would have to work to two masters. That is not the case. There would be no change in the line of command within the Agriculture Departments. The agency agreement would be made between the Commission and senior officers of the Agriculture Departments; it is those senior officers who would carry the responsibility for the implementation of the agreement by the Agriculture Departments, and the line of command and accountability would run from them right through to the field officers.
I should also make very clear that we have ensured that the agency agreement can authorise the Agriculture Departments to exercise any enforcement powers that are necessary to enable them to carry out their functions under the agreement, including, for example, powers to appoint inspectors and to conduct prosecutions.
§ Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)
Does what the hon. Gentleman is saying also cover Scotland, where the inspectorate deals both with safety and with wages? 815 This is of crucial importance in relation to Scottish procedures.
§ Mr. Walker
The arrangement will be exactly the same for Scotland, as I understand it.
There were those in another place who were not entirely satisfied about certain aspects of the proposed agency arrangement. Their solution was to table an avalanche of amendments which had nothing to do with making an agency agreement; they simply cut the Health and Safety Commission out of farm safety enforcement altogether.
Last week in another place the ex-General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers made a quite and dignified plea on behalf of the farm workers. He said that they had been treated differently so often in the past, as if they were second-class citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] I only hope that that reaction can find its way on to the record. The sneers of the Opposition are an indication and an indictment of their attitude to the Bill. I wonder how many of them are employers of those workers about whose interests they sneer.
I was saying that the eloquent and gentle plea of the former General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers was that farm workers should be treated differently in the future. That plea fell on deaf ears. But I do not believe that it will fall on deaf ears in this House, which has so warmly welcomed the general philosophy of this Bill—that health and safety in all industry should be given a status on its own, in order that it may be accorded the priority which it deserves.
I invite the House to support the motions disagreeing with the Lords in these amendments.
§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)
I have to begin by apologising to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he finds himself confronting yet another new face. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who dealt with this matter on Report, has asked me to apologise for the fact that he is unable to be present tonight. He has had to fulfil an engagement previously arranged to be carried out by my right hon. Friend the 816 Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who is temporarily indisposed.
As the hon. Gentleman said, these amendments have been debated so often that not only must they have become a little tired and sorry that they have not yet found a permanent home but the arguments have been so well rehearsed so often that there is little to be gained from lengthy repetition of them. For those reasons, I make only two points.
Before I come to them, I want first to express extreme regret that the Government are not prepared to accept the revisions of the other place in connection with these amendments, which concern means and not ends. It is common ground that there should be measures to improve the safety record of agriculture. There is no question of treating agricultural workers differently. It is, on the other hand, purely a matter of judgment within the wider provisions of the Bill as to who is best fitted to achieve that end. This side of the House, with one or two exceptions, has consistently believed that the Minister of Agriculture should be responsible. Originally this was also the belief of the Government, but they changed their mind. There is nothing in particular to be said for consistency but there is a good deal to be said for being influenced by the weight of the argument, and I believe that the Government have been wrongly influenced.
The Under-Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland a helpful letter explaining his proposals for the chain of responsibility, assuming that the commission is responsible for Health and safety in agriculture. The proposals in the letter assume that the commission will establish an agency agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, but that is a broad assumption. Nothing in the Bill insists on such an agency agreement, nor is there anything about the nature of such an agreement. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary what guarantee there is that such an agreement will be made. I imagine that the Under-Secretary's letter will commit this Government, but they are not, I hope, going to be the last Government, and future Governments may take a totally different view which might not have some of the supposed conditions of the sort of agency agreement which the Under-Secretary describes. But even if there is such an 817 agreement along the lines suggested by the Under-Secretary in his letter it seems that it would be little more than a facade. The Under-Secretary has referred to that agreement. In his letter he said:The agency agreement will be made between senior officers representing the Agricultural Departments and the Commission. This means that formal responsibility for implementing the agreement will lie with the Permanent Secretaries of the Agricultural Departments, and basic instructions to those working in the field will derive ultimately from them as at present.The letter later states:But no instructions will be issued direct to Field Officers by the Health and Safety Executive. The actual chain of command and accountability will continue to be from and to the senior officers in the Headquarters of the Agricultural Departments who enter into the agency agreement with the Commission.With the chain of command being so closely interwoven with the Minister of Agriculture, what is the point of intervening the executive, and only at such a high level? There is a great deal to be said for putting the Ministry of Agriculture on its mettle, as the only single-industry Department, to try to provide even better safety services and coverage than the executive.
I remind the Under-Secretary that there is a precedent for leaving responsibility of this type solely with the Ministry of Agriculture, and there is also a warning; namely, experience with the Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Training Board. The Under-Secretary will remember the experience with that board. Suffice it to say, therefore, that the peculiarities of the structure of agriculture and its relationship to one Department convince us that that Department is best fitted to retain responsibility for as much as possible of what occurs in the industry.
Agriculture is fragmented. It involves small labour units and it has an immense diversity of employment. It already has its own field officers, who are to continue to be responsible for safety, and its own Ministry. For all these reasons, I recommend the House to oppose the motion.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)
I am surprised that the Government are persisting in their attempt to return to the form in which the Bill originally left this House. The Minister's speech was profoundly dissatisfying. [An HON. 818 MEMBER: "Do not be intolerant."] I as not: it is the Minister who is intolerant—of sensible amendments. He began with an account of the historical process in the House a few weeks ago. He said that if we failed to carry the Government's motion, the House would have made an S-turn. We should have done more than that: we should have reversed the Government's policy. But it is sensible to do so. The Government themselves changed their minds at one stage, as the Minister admitted.
The sole question before us is not whether farm workers and their families are entitled to proper health and safety regulations, but how they are best administered. There are already experienced field officers in the Ministry of Agriculture. The danger with the Health and Safety Commission is that it will tend to become a centralised, bureaucratic body. It is more sensible for the farm workers that the regulations continue to be introduced and administered by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is directly responsible to this House. He can be questioned about why regulations are not being introduced and so on. Who is to answer for the commission? It is not directly responsible. It is much more indirectly responsible than the Minister.
I have no doubt that the Minister was correct when he said that the ex-Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural Workers made a dignified and eloquent speech in the House of Lords. I am sure that we could all have agreed with seven-eighths of that speech, about the need for greater safety in agriculture. But it is quite a different thing to go on from that to imply, as the Minister did, that hon. Members on this side are not concerned about the safety of farm workers. That was a nasty innuendo, which the Minister, for whom I have great respect, should not have made.
§ Mr. Hooson
I will give way in a moment. Everyone knows that the safety record in agriculture is improving and the number of deaths is going down. There are still too many, especially in areas like mine, and with the best equipment in the world. The tractor accidents which cause most deaths have nothing to do with the machines. It is the farm 819 worker, often the farmer himself—I have had personal friends killed in this way—who will try to do the impossible with a tractor, and no one can stop him.
I am not saying that there should not be tight regulations to try to prevent these accidents, but I am certain that the field officers of the Ministry of Agriculture have far greater experience than anyone in the Health and Safety Commission. It would, therefore, be sensible of the Government not to persist with this motion.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
I wanted to intervene when the hon. and learned Gentleman was rebuking me for criticising Opposition Members. I do not want him to misunderstand me. I was rebuking those who sneered when I quoted the words of the noble Lord who was formerly General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. I felt justified in my anger, and I still feel justified for rebuking them.
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)
I add my support to those on the Opposition benches who are trying to retain the useful amendments made in another place. Such amendments are essential with regard to safety in agriculture. I very much regret not having had the opportunity to serve on the Committee considering the Bill so that I could take part in the discussions earlier.
§ Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us are aware of the interests of Opposition Members, but since the last General Election many new Members have entered the House who are not aware of those interests. May I ask through you whether Opposition Members will declare their interest.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman takes upon himself the responsibility for declaring an interest if he has one.
§ Mr. Farr
Certainly I will declare an interest in agriculture. As the hon. Gentleman well knew, I have an interest, 820 and I hope that I shall long continue to have an interest.
The amendments made in another place have improved the Bill no end, and I hope that they will be persisted with, because of the special situation in agriculture. People in the industry have to operate complex machinery today. A worker can go away for two or three days, out of sight of anyone else, and have sole charge of such machinery. That happens in virtually no other industry. An operator in agriculture must also have specialised knowledge of handling all the many poisonous chemicals that are used, such as herbicides and pesticides. There are unique agricultural problems of spray drift and so on.
The present arrangements whereby the Ministry of Agriculture has been responsible for supervising the work have served the industry as a whole well. The Ministry took time to get to grips with many of the problems that occurred just after the war, but in recent years we have seen a succession of useful measures from the Ministry, which have been piloted through the House by both Conservative and Labour Ministers. We have had valuable regulations relating to safety cabs on tractors, which have already had a marked impact on the annual number of fatalities. We have a range of sophisticated regulations, which are slowly coming into effect, relating to the noise level in tractors and the effect of noise on the operator in a tractor for continued periods. These are special problems relating to agriculture. I feel that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is getting to grips with these matters and starting to make a real impact.
I hasten to say that none of us can be complacent about fatalities in agriculture. The House may be aware of the fact that in the past five years no fewer than 637 persons have died on our farms and that over 36,000 persons have been injured. In agriculture, fatalities per thousand have not declined from about 0.15 for a number of years. That is accounted for by the continual introduction of more and more complex machines.
Possibly the greatest objection to the transfer of the existing powers from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Health and Safety Commission is that it will 821 affect the tremendously close liaison which exists between agriculture on the one hand and the agricultural, horticultural and forestry training boards on the other. The Ministry and the training boards work together extremely efficiently. The House will agree that it is only first-class training and instruction which will continue to bring about a decline in the number of fatalities on the farms.
If we are to transfer power to the Health and Safety Commission I believe that, whatever its merits may be, in the long term the result will be a pause of a year or two while the different mechanism of control comes into use. That could have a bad effect on the impact which Ministry officials are having on farm safety. They are doing a great job. I fear that if the House seeks to change the system the change will be to the detriment of agricultural safety in general.
§ Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I must take the Minister to task for his attitude. I earlier shouted "Nonsense" because farmers—and I must declare an interest as a farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was a farm worker in days gone by. That is more than any Labour hon. Member can say. Come on, stand up. I shall give way. Not one Labour hon. Member has ever been a farm worker.
§ Mr Mills
When I said "Nonsense" I was commenting on the assertion that the farm worker was a second-class person. Most of us realise what first-class men they are. I believe that the Minister is wrong. He should apologise to the House. It is easy for Labour hon. Members to think that they have a monopoly of those who are concerned with farm workers. Some of us who had very humble origins know what it is to work. That is more than you can say.
§ Mr. Mills
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was really addressing my remarks to Labour hon. Members.
I have been concerned with agricultural safety for some time. I think, without boasting, that I was one of the 822 first in the House to be concerned about safety cabs. I am very much concerned with these matters and my record proves it. They are of great importance to agricultural safety and health.
I regret to say that I think agricultural accidents are increasing because of the sophisticated machinery that is now being used. It is essential to have a good programme of education. I believe that that should come from the Ministry. The Ministry has the trust of the farmers. Certainly the inspectors are men of integrity and of great help. They have the confidence of the farmers. The Ministry has a long tradition of taking an interest in safety. Further, the Ministry is responsible to the House. When I look back on the Questions that I have asked on this subject I realise how important it is that we should be able to question the Ministry about health and safety in agriculture.
I do not believe that the agency goes far enough. I ask the House to consider this proposal very carefully because much is at stake. Those of us concerned about these matters sincerely believe that the Ministry of Agriculture and not the commission should handle them and many farm workers agree with us.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. James Prior (Lowerstoft)
I declare an interest as a farmer. Of course, if this Government remain in office much longer I shall wish to get rid of my interest. If the agency arrangements are to be as the Under-Secretary of State describes, I cannot see why he cannot leave the whole thing in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture. That would be the sensible thing to do. If, on the other hand, the agency is not to be a true contact with the Ministry, it does not meet his case and certainly not our case.
The truth is that this is a dirty little local squabble within the Government. The argument is not really between Ministers but between officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Employment into which Ministers have, unfortunately and regrettably, been drawn. I know exactly what has happened. The Ministry of Agriculture won the first round and the Department of Employment won the second round, with the result that the Bill had to be 823 changed. The Secretary of State for Employment will not deny that, because it is true.
The people who will suffer are the safety inspectorate of the Ministry of Agriculture, the devoted servants in that Ministry who have rendered very good service to the industry for many years and know their job, the Ministry as a whole, and, in all probability, the farm workers whom we all want to help and protect. For the sake of an interdepartmental squabble, the best interests of our finest industry and of the finest people in the world are to suffer. That is why we object so strongly to it.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
By leave of the House, I should like to make a brief reply. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have not been talking about what is in the Bill. Nothing of what they said is in the Bill. These are merely administrative matters. What is in the Bill is who is to make the regulations, and hon. Members have not addressed themselves to that point.
In Committee the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border Mr. White-law) said that he was in a somewhat difficult position. He went on:
§ "My personal position is that, having agreed as Secretary of State that agriculture should be excluded and having bowed to the view strongly held by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I do not feel that I can do one thing in Government and another in Opposition. That would be a dishonest position. Therefore, I must stand by what I did. If the Government decide that they are going to stand by the Bill as it now is, I will support them because that was my position.
§ I realise that the arguments are balanced, and this is only my personal position and I am not in any way entitled to advise my hon. Friends as to what they should do in these circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th May 1974, c. 131.]
§ They got the message on that occasion and I wish the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) would get it now. What we are doing has been recommended not by vested interests but by impartial observers like the British Safety Council, the Royal Society of the Prevention of Accidents, and others, and, above all, by Robens. We are acting in accordance with non-vested interests.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 159.825
|Division No. 93.]
|Dormand, J. D.
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
|Dunn, James A.
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S.)
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
|Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)
|Bishop, E. S.
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
|Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)
|Fernyhough, Rt Hn. E.
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)
|Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce(H'gey, WoodGreen)
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
|Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
|Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
|Concannon, J. D.
|Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
|Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
|Madden, M. O. F.
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
|Grant, George (Morpeth)
|Cryer, G. R.
|Grant, John (Islington, C.)
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
|Cunningham, G. (Is'l ingt' n, S & F'sb'ry)
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
|Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh 'v' n)
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
|Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)
|Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
|Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
|Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney & P'plar)
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
|Perry, Ernest G.
|Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
|Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
|Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
|Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
|Price, William (Rugby)
|Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
|Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
|Richardson, Miss Jo
|Stallard, A. W.
|Wise, Mrs. Audrey
|Roderick, Caerwyn E.
|Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)
|Rodgers, George (Chorley)
|Stoddart, David (Swindon)
|Rooker, J. W.
|Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
|TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Rose, Paul B.
|Mr. John Golding and
|Urwin, T. W.
|Mr. Laurie Pavitt.
|Prior, Rt. Hn. James
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
|Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
|Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
|Howell, David (Guildford)
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
|Rees-Davies, W. R.
|Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H 't' gd 'ns' re)
|Beith, A. J.
|Iremonger, T. L.
|Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
|Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)
|Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
|Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
|Boscawen, Hon. Robert
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
|Bradford, Rev. R.
|Kilfedder, James A.
|Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
|Kitson, Sir Timothy
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
|Knight, Mrs. Jill
|Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
|Shelton, William (L'mbeth, Streath'm)
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
|Latham, Michael (Melton)
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
|Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
|Churchill, W. S.
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)
|Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
|Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
|Stradling Thomas, John
|Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
|Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
|Crowder, F. P.
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
|Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'den S.)
|Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
|Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
|Townsend, C. D.
|Mayhew, Patrick (RoylT'bridgeWells)
|Meyer, Sir Anthony
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
|Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)
|Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
|Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
|Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
|West, Rt. Hn. Harry
|Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
|Winstanley, Dr. Michael
|Gibson-Watt, Rt Hn. David
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
|Newton, Tony (Braintree)
|Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
|Glyn, Dr Alan
|Worsley, Sir Marcus
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
|Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
|Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
|Mr. Cecil Parkinson.
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
|TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
|Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
|Price, David (Eastleigh)
|Mr. Cecil Parkinson.
|Henderson, Douglas (Ab 'rd' nsh 're, E)
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
I beg to move, in page 45, line 44, Clause 49, after "regulations" insert "and agricultural health and safety regulations."
§ This amendment is consequential to the last decision of the House.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
In view of the de-decision of the House to agree with the Lords amendments which restore the 827 special provisions for agriculture I shall have to move some consequential drafting amendments. The provisions which have just been put back in the Bill take no account of other amendments which have been made to the Bill by this House in another place. None of these drafting amendments will in any way undermine the special provisions that the House has just agreed. I hope the House will bear with me in moving these amendments in this fashion.