HC Deb 30 July 1974 vol 878 cc501-17

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4A, line 36, at end, insert the following new Clause A—

  1. "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every worker shall have the right not to be—
    1. (a) excluded from membership;
    2. (b) expelled from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.
  2. (2) The exclusion or expulsion of a worker from membership of a union, branch or section 502 shall not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the worker is of a description different from that or those of the majority of the members of that union, branch or section (as the case may be) or does not possess the appropriate qualifications for such membership.
  3. (3) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that union, branch or section.
  4. (4) Where any such declaration has been made and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such other relief (including compensation) as the Court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.
  5. (5) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from a trade union."

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

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I do not suppose that anyone in the House, particularly those who endured the Committee and Report stages and other proceedings on the Bill, will wish me to rehearse the arguments on the clause at any length. I certainly do not propose to do so. But I trust that in my referring to the matter briefly no one will thereby jump to the assumption that I do not regard the clause as an important one. We certainly think that it is important. As we have said on previous occasions, we believe that it is necessary that steps should be taken to deal with the problem with which the clause seeks to deal. But, as we have explained previously, we do not think that the way in which the Opposition has sought to deal with the matter is sensible. Indeed, we believe that this way of going about it would be injurious, perhaps, to the performance that they themselves or others have at heart in trying to deal with the problem.

I shall not, therefore, go over those arguments again. I merely say that on the ground of principle, as I have argued previously, we disagree with the proposal for this way of dealing with it. However, I repeat all the undertakings that I have made on behalf of the Government on Second reading, in Committee and on Report. I repeat all the undertakings that we certainly intend to proceed to deal with it in some form or other, either in a code of practice or by some other means, but following consultations with the General Council of the TUC, when we introduce the next Bill in the autumn—the Employment Protection Bill.

In examining the clause as it has returned from the other place, I should like to reinforce our objections to the acceptance of this clause by underlining some of the deficiencies which we see in it as it is drafted, and which further indicate why it would be much more desirable to proceed to deal with the matter along the lines that the Government have suggested from the beginning. But here are some particular matters on which we think that the clause is defective—defective even for achieving any sensible result.

First, while arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination may be a good test in relation to exclusion from a trade union, it does not make sense in relation to expulsion. Second, the sensible test for expulsion is to ask whether it is fair and reasonable by ordinary commonsense standards. This is not necessarily the same thing as asking whether the expelled member was treated differently from other members. Third, the test in subsection (2) of the worker in question being of a different description from the majority of members of the union will often produce a nonsense in relation to expulsion.

Fourth, the other test in subsection (2) about possessing the appropriate qualifications for membership of the union seems misconceived. Section 65 of the 1971 Act mentioned appropriate qualifications for a job, a legitimate test. This part of subsection (2) either duplicates the "description" test or goes too far. For instance, it might allow a union to exclude applicants for membership on the ground that their fathers or grandfathers had not been members of the union.

Fifth, subsection (2) appears to suffer from the same defect as subsection (1), namely, that the provisions work for refusal to admit but not for expulsion. It is established that if a worker is ineligible but is "admitted" to membership then when his ineligibility is discovered he is not "expelled" because he has never been a member. Sixth, subsection (3) could be criticised for not giving enough guidance to industrial tribunals as to when they are to make a declaration.

Seventh, subsection (4) is defective in four different respects. In the first place, one does not "implement" a declaration, although one can give effect to what it declares. Next, the subsection does not answer the question whether the worker has to prove his right to membership all over again before the High Court or whether he can simply prove the declaration and the fact that it has been ignored. Third, the subsection gives no guidance on the awarding of compensation and how it is to be assessed; nor does it give power to assess further compensation if the union persists in excluding a worker.

I cannot believe that subsection (5) is necessary. It is inconceivable that the courts would construe the existence of the clause as cutting down any common law rights.

We believe, therefore, that those are good reasons why the clause as it stands, even for the purpose as the Opposition and the House of Lords have expressed it, is deficient and should not be accepted by a Parliament which is saying that it wants to make the law clear. We think that the reason why such a deficient clause has been presented to the House is precisely that, as we have reiterated in previous debates, those who have drawn up the clause are not really familiar with the conduct of trade unions. That is why they have produced a clause which does not bear any relationship to the way in which these matters can be dealt with.

Therefore, even in the interests of securing a clause which achieved the end which right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have indicated, we would say that there are good reasons for rejecting the clause, because a clause of this nature put into the law of the land and operated, giving rise to the anomalies and disagreements which would certainly arise from such a badly drafted clause, might prejudice the whole idea of getting a sensible arrangement in the end.

I turn to another subject which does not immediately appear to be exactly connected with this aspect of the matter—although I believe that it is and I shall seek to illustrate that shortly. I must comment briefly, however, on the position left on the so-called Lever amendments and the failure of the House of Lords, notably Lord Hailsham, to alter them in any particular whatever. This relates to what we are discussing. This affects the question of the circumstances in which someone might be excluded or expelled from, or find himself no longer a member of, a union. But it is necessary that the House should consider, in relation to the clause and the Bill generally, what is the position on the statute book as a result of the House of Lords' attitude to the so-called Lever amendments. The House will recall the incident which occurred a week or two ago.

4.30 p.m.

One result of those two amendments as they stand would be complete confusion. By giving what could be a totally misleading definition of a closed shop, Parliament will be saying "We define as an elephant an animal with a long neck and horns, and it is for the courts to apply the definition in the real world where elephants have trunks and tusks." That could be one of the meanings of the definition which has been placed in the Bill.

A possible serious deduction from this ridiculous situation is that people may be deprived of the right which the whole House wishes them to have. Those who remember all our discussions will remember our discussions about people with religious convictions and how that might apply in cases of unfair dismissal. If the normal type of closed shop agreement does not fall within the present definition, this could mean that workers dismissed in a closed shop situation, although they have religious objections to belonging to any trade union, will be deprived of any protection against unfair dismissal which the Government wanted to provide.

There is another possible explanation for these provisions. On the strict wording of the Bill as it stands and which the House of Lords has denied us the right to alter, there is another reading which could be satisfactory to the Government but, I presume, not to the Opposition. The Act read as a whole makes both legal and industrial sense only if the Lever membership agreement is permitted to specify to which unions the relevant workers must belong—in other words, it may be that the main aim the Government had in mind is achieved despite the Opposition mutilations. The Government would have preferred to have made the law clear instead of leaving it in this state of chaos.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been more informative and at the same time more fair if, instead of blaming the Upper House for this situation, he told the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made two offers to clear the defect about which he has spoken and that it is the Government who have rejected them out of hand and turned down the opportunity to avoid all the difficulties about which he is speaking?

Mr. Foot

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given a fair account of what has occurred. I intended to refer to discussions which had taken place. No real responsibility for this state of affairs can be pinned upon the Government, because in the Lords the Government attempted to return the Lever amendments to the Commons for intelligent scrutiny. Thus all the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for an alteration of what might be done would under his proposal have come back to the Commons for discussion. We were certainly not opposed to that.

Indeed, if what the Government proposed in the Lords had been accepted the matter could have come back to the Commons for decision. However, it is by the decision of the House of Lords, and in particular on the insistence of Lord Hailsham, as is evident from the debates that took place there, that we have been denied the right to settle the matter, whether with the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendments or with others. The Tory majority in the House of Lords flatly rejected the proposal to deal with the matter in that way.

Therefore, the so-called Lever amendments should be given their proper name. They will go on to the statute book as the finest specimen of Hailsham law, brilliantly contradictory to the point of schizophrenia. That is the fact. No hon. Gentleman opposite can escape from the responsibility for the situation.

If it is proposed to go ahead with some of the other amendments, which unfortunately leave the law in chaos, nobody will know exactly what is the meaning of the law on those two amendments until the matters come before the courts.

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

Why, then, did not the right hon. Gentleman move amendments himself in the Lords, as he could have done, and which would have been accepted by the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Motions were moved which would have ensured that these matters would have returned to the House of Commons. Those motions were defeated because the House of Lords—in particular, Lord Hailsham—were determined to adhere to these amendments despite their defects, and their obscurity.

I come to the amendment and how it affects this position. Once again, what the House has to consider is whether Parliament is to place upon the statute book provisions which are very obscure. That would be the effect if we were to agree to the Lords amendment on the rights of workers against arbitrary exclusion from trade union membership.

As I have indicated before in considerable detail in the sense of pointing out several defects in the amendment as it stands, it would be reprehensible if Parliament were not only to permit the Lever amendments, so-called, to go on to the statute book in the chaotic state in which the House of Lords has left them but were to proceed further to deal with the matter in a fashion not so different.

I hope that the House has good reasons for disagreeing with this Lords amendment. On the question of seeking to avoid legal confusion, if this clause giving rise to such legal confusion were to be placed upon the statute book I believe that it would prejudice the aim which I think is held by many hon. Members, certainly by hon. Members on this side.

We wish to deal with this problem in a fair and sensible manner. We believe that the best way of dealing with it is after consultations with the trade unions which are effective. The course I described on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report is much the best way of proceeding. The House would make a great mistake if it were to substitute for our sensible recommendations measures which would lead only to further legal confusion and further uncertainty about the Bill's interpretation when it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: (Brentford and Isleworth)

I am sorry that the Secretary of State adopted the very unconstructive, dogmatic and "anti" attitude which has pervaded practically his whole approach to every suggestion, from whatever quarter, which has been designed to make substantial improvements to the Bill.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is missing a great opportunity. I do not understand why he cannot find it in himself to accept the reasonable and sensible changes which have been proposed and which have commanded the support of the Conservative and Liberal benches and which I think would command much wider support if these issues were taken outside the House into a wider forum and public opinion could be tested.

The Lords amendment suggests that workers shall have the right not to be excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination". That proposition is so unexceptionable as to command at least the support in principle of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. I believe that we should be discussing the matter in a little detail but certainly not in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter in Committee, on Report and again today. His argument remained thin and got thinner as he repeated it.

The substantial part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to carry this amendment because the Government propose to do something undefined on an unspecified date. The Government say that they do not know quite what they will do, or when they intend to do it, but that it would be much better to leave the situation open, with no protection for people treated arbitrarily except common law, which gives no protection to someone arbitrarily excluded from a union.

Not quite all hon. Members on this side share the views that I have expressed. Members of the Scottish National Party have throughout had no regard for the rights of the individual but have humped and stumped themselves completely into the Labour Party's pocket. They do not contribute to our debate, but no doubt their votes are useful to the Labour Party.

In addition to his suggestion that we should wait, the right hon. Gentleman has attacked drafting deficiencies in the amendment with 10 nit-picking comments, which his advisers have no doubt been chasing around to find. I noticed that he was reading from a script instead of letting the words flow from his own mind as he usually does. The arguments, as a result, were unbelievably thin.

On a new matter, the right hon. Gentleman said that subsection (5) in Amendment No. 3 was unnecessary. The point is made that nothing in the clause will detract from the common law rights of people affected. The right hon. Gentleman's legal advice may be absolutely certain that nothing in the preceding four subsections could in any circumstances affect those rights. But there is no harm in that final subsection. It may be tautologous but surely even in his own writings over the years there is the odd sentence which was not necessary, a belt reinforcing braces. That was the level of his arguments. I suspect that the simple truth is that he has not had the TUC's permission to accept the amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman is already reported as saying that amendments in another place would stop trade unions doing things which they have been free to do for years. That is an interesting comment. Perhaps the report that I read, which was a condensed version—

Mr. Foot

I think that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Hayhoe indicated assent.

Mr. Foot

He has got it inaccurately, so I hope that he will not proceed. My reference to the amendment in the House of Lords which injured some activities which trade unions exercised between 1906 and the 1960s referred to the immunities clause and not this clause at all.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am glad of that explanation. The report in the Daily Telegraph was a curious one. The suggestion could have led one into these wider aspects. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman did not seek to attack this change because it harmed union rights.

Mr. Foot

The hon. Member must not follow the example of the Daily Telegraph. I said that I was referring to another clause, but he must not say that I was saying that the clause which we are discussing as adopted by the Lords contains nothing detrimental to unionists. As I have said, partly because of serious drafting errors, it could inflict injustices on people in closed shop and other situations.

Mr. Hayhoe

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter, I might say that the reason why the Daily Telegraph used the words it did was that the words that he had used in his handout were seriously deficient. Of the amendments made in another place, he said in that handout: But some of these amendments rob trade unionists of rights which they have held and invoked effectively during most of the period between 1906 and 1971". If he was not prepared to specify the amendments he had in mind and we have had to draw him to his feet today to make it clear that he was referring to the specific amendment to Clause 10, could he tell us what other amendments he thinks rob trade unions of their rights?

Mr. Foot

Another one is that relating to interpretation of the union membership agreement under the interpretation which the Opposition placed upon it. But I have said already that there is a great deal of confusion there, that no one knows what it means.

Mr. Hayhoe

The Secretary of State dives in deeper. The House of Lords made no change to the definition of the union membership agreement—

Mr. Foot

The Opposition did.

Mr. Hayhoe

But the Secretary of State's handout talked of amendments made in another place. He gets deeper in the mire the more he tries to explain, with the broad brush spraying the dirt of condemnation in the handout. We now understand that he believes that what he said in the handout applies to changes to the immunity provisions. We may come to those arguments later. What he said certainly does not apply to the matter that we are now discussing.

The only compelling argument, which moved some of the Secretary of State's right hon. Friends, former Ministers, was the argument not that the proposals in the clause were wrong and deficient but that because the Government had promised to bring forward future changes we should wait until then. There was general agreement among members of his own party in another place that a provision of this kind against arbitrary or discriminatory expulsion or exclusion was a good thing. The whole background of the matter favours such a provision.

So for all the right hon. Gentleman's fine words about what he may do in future, we should tell him and his hon. Friends that he leaves us wholly unconvinced, that we are not prepared to accept his advice to disagree with the Lords. On the contrary, we believe that the Lords have made a good amendment. It is an amendment that we have discussed in the past and that the House came near to supporting when we considered it before. I hope that today we shall confirm that we should have this protection against arbitrary or discriminatory action, even though it happens only occasionally. That is a matter agreed on both sides of the House. It is an essential protection, which must be implemented in the Bill.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

The Secretary of State is asking the House to do a great deal, in asking it to sacrifice these Lords amendments. He has already admitted in his statement that if the amendment is excluded from the Bill the consequences for an individual could be serious. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he confessed that the amendment is excluded from the Bill the conequences could be of some significance to the individual affected. He said that if that happened the situation would be remedied by a clause to be included in the Employment Protection Bill. That is the inference to be drawn. Otherwise,

that Bill would not be necessary. No hon. Member on this side of the House knows anything about that Bill. None of us—Conservatives, Liberals or other parties—has any idea what it will include, and probably many of the Secretary of State's own colleagues do not know.

The Secretary of State is asking us to sacrifice this only safeguard for the sake of the amorphous inclusion of a new provision in a Bill that has probably not yet been drafted. I would remind the Secretary of State that the lives of Governments, like those of individuals, are somewhat uncertain. There is no certainty that we shall ever see that Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the wording was defective. He even said that a declaration cannot be implemented. That is reducing the matter to an absurdity. The Secretary of State must know full well that the terms of a declaration can be implemented, and would be interpreted accordingly.

I hope that the Secretary of State will realise on reflection that he is asking too much. He will not admit that anyone outside his own party can have a real concern for the welfare and well-being of the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those shouts from Labour Members emphasise the absurdity of that thought. There are many people in all parties who want an effective, excellent trade union movement, but the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that in certain circumstances through a defect in the law there can be tyranny within the movement. We do not want that. We want the movement to achieve the maximum success based on the voluntary association which was the basis of its design. We do not want it done by compulsion. I should have thought that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would want the same.

I hope that we shall press for the inclusion of the Lords amendment in the Bill.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 276.

Division No. 103.] AYES [4.55 p.m.
Archer, Peter Ashley, Jack Atkins, Ronald
Armstrong, Ernest Ashton, Joe Atkinson, Norman
Bagier, Gordon, A. T. Grant, George (Morpeth) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Barnett, (Guy Greenwich) Grant, John (Islington, C.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton) Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside) Murray, Ronald King
Baxter, William Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hamilton, William (Fife, C.) Oakes, Gordon
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.) Hamling, William Ogden, Eric
Bidwell, Sydney Hardy, Peter O'Halloran, Michael
Bishop, E. S. Harper, Joseph O'Malley, Brian
Blenkinsop, Arthur Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orbach, Maurice
Boardman, H. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Ovenden, John
Booth, Albert Hattersley, Roy Owen, Dr. David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Hatton, Frank Padley, Walter
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Palmer, Arthur
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Heffer, Eric S. Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Bradley, Tom Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Broughton, Sir Alfred Hooley, Frank Perry, Ernest G.
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Horam, John Phipps, Dr. Colin
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch) Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn Huckfield, Leslie Prescott, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Price, William (Rugby)
Campbell, Ian Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North) Radice, Giles
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Roy (Newport) Reid, George
Carter, Ray Hunter, Adam Richardson, Miss Jo
Carter-Jones, Lewis Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Clemitson, Ivor Jackson, Colin Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cocks, Michael Janner, Greville Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Cohen, Stanley Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Coleman, Donald Jeger, Mrs. Lena Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N. Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney) Rooker, J. W.
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd) Rose, Paul B.
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.) John, Brynmor Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill) Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W) Rowlands, Edward
Crawshaw, Richard Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Sandelson, Neville
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Selby, Harry
Cryer, G. R. Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry) Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dalyell, Tam Judd, Frank Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Davidson, Arthur Kaufman, Gerald Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.) Kelley, Richard Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Kerr, Russell Silverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Skinner, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Kinnock, Neil Small, William
Deakins, Eric Lamborn, Harry Snape, Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.) Lamond, James Spearing, Nigel
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton) Spriggs, Leslie
Delargy, Hugh Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Leadbitter, Ted Stallard, A. W.
Dempsey, James Lee, John Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)
Doig, Peter Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dormand, J. D. Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stott, Roger
Duffy, A. E. P. Lipton, Marcus Strang, Gavin
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth Loughlin, Charles Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Edelman, Maurice Loyden, Eddie Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley
Edge, Geoff Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Swain, Thomas
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.) Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) McCartney, Hugh Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
English, Michael MacCormack, Iain Tierney, Sydney
Ennals, David McElhone, Frank Tinn, James
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) MacFarquhar, Roderick Tomlinson, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) McGuire, Michael Tomney, Frank
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn) Maclennan, Robert Torney, Tom
Faulds, Andrew McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Tuck, Raphael
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. McNamara, Kevin Urwin, T. W.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Madden, M. O. F. Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Magee, Bryan Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Flannery, Martin Mallalieu, J. P. W. Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Marks, Kenneth Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marquand, David Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole) Watkins, David
Ford, Ben Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Watt, Hamish
Forrester, John Meacher, Michael Weitzman, David
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wellbeloved, James
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood) Mendelson, John White, James
Freeson, Reginald Mikardo, Ian Whitehead, Phillip
Galpern, Sir Myer Millan, Bruce Whitlock, William
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.) Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride) Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
George, Bruce Molloy, William Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John Moonman, Eric Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)
Golding, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)
Gourlay, Harry Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) Woodall, Alec
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.) Woof, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) Wrigglesworth, Ian Mr. Thomas Cox and
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.) Young, David (Bolton, E.) Mr. James A. Dunn.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Adley, Robert Fisher, Sir Nigel Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)
Aitken, Jonathan Fookes, Miss Janet Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field) Loveridge, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Fox, Marcus Luce, Richard
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) MacArthur, Ian
Archer, Jeffrey Freud, Clement McCrindle, R. A.
Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne) Fry, Peter Macfarlane, Neil
Awdry, Daniel Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D. MacGregor, John
Beith, A. J. Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead) McLaren, Martin
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham) Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Benyon, W. Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Berry, Hon. Anthony Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Biffen, John Glyn, Dr. Alan Madel, David
Biggs-Davison, John Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Blaker, Peter Goodhart, Philip Marten, Neil
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.) Goodhew, Victor Mather, Carol
Boscawen, Hon. Robert Goodlad, A. Maude, Angus
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.) Gorst, John Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Bradford, Rev. R. Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Mawby, Ray
Braine, Sir Bernard Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bray, Ronald Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Brewis, John Gray, Hamish Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridgeWells)
Brittan, John Grieve, Percy Meyer, Sir Anthony
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grist, Ian Miscampbell, Norman
Bryan, Sir Paul Grylls, Michael Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Gurden, Harold Moate, Roger
Buck, Antony Hall, Sir John Molyneaux, James
Budgen, Nick Hall-Davies, A. G. F. Money, Ernle
Bulmer, Esmond Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hannam, John Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Carlisle, Mark Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Carson, John Havers, Sir Michael Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Hayhoe, Barney Mudd, David
Channon, Paul Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Neave, Alrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Neubert, Michael
Churchill, W. S. Heseltine, Michael Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Higgins, Terence Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Clark, William (Croydon, S.) Hill, James A. Normanton, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Holland, Philip Nott, John
Clegg, Walter Hooson, Emlyn Onslow, Cranley
Cockcroft, John Hordern, Peter Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.) Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cope, John Howell, David (Guildford) Osborn, John
Cormack, Patrick Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Corrie, John Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Costain, A. P. Hunt, John Paisley, Rev. Ian
Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.) Hurd, Douglas Pardoe, John
Critchley, Julian Hutchison, Michael Clark Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Crouch, David Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pattie, Geoffrey
Crowder, F. P. James, David Percival, Ian
Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford) Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James Jessel, Toby Pink, R. Bonner
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Dixon, Piers Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Raison, Timothy
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas Jopling, Michael Rathbone, Tim
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kaberry, Sir Donald Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Redmond, Robert
Drayson, Burnaby Kilfedder, James A. Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Kimball, Marcus Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dunlop, John King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Durant, Tony King, Tom (Bridgwater) Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Dykes, Hugh Kirk, Peter Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Kitson, Sir Timothy Ridsdale, Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Knight, Mrs. Jill Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Elliott, Sir William Knox, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N. W.)
Emery, Peter Lamont, Norman Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Eyre, Reginald Lane, David Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fairgrieve, Russell Langford-Holt, Sir John Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Farr, John Latham, Michael (Mellon) Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fell, Anthony Lawrence, Ivan Sainsbnry, Tim
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Lawson, Nigel (Blaby) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fidler, Michael Le Marchant, Spencer Scott-Hopkins, James
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lester, Jim (Beeston) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Stokes, John Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Shelton, Wiliam (L'mb'th, Streath'm) Stradling Thomas, John Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Shersby, Michael Tapsell, Peter Wall, Patrick
Silvester, Fred Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart) Weatherill, Bernard
Sims, Roger Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Sinclair, Sir George Tebbit, Norman Wiggin, Jerry
Skeet, T. H. H. Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret Winstanley, Dr. Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Winterton, Nicholas
Smith, John (W'wick & L'm'ngton) Townsend, C. D. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Spence, John Trotter, Neville Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.) Tugendhat, Christopher Worsley, Sir Marcus
Sproat, Iain Tyler, Paul Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)
Stainton, Keith van Straubenzee, W. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor Viggers, Peter TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stanley, John Waddington, David Mr. Paul Hawkins and
Steel, David Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) Dr. Gerard Vaughan.
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Wakeham, John
Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.) Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to