§ Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4A, line 36, at end insert the following new Clause B—
- "(1) The rules of every trade union and employers' association shall contain provisions in respect of the matters mentioned in the following subsections of this section.
- (2) The rules must specify the name of the trade union or employers' association, the address of its principal office and the objects for which it was established.
- (3) The rules must make provision as to the purposes for which, and the manner in which, any property or funds of the trade union or employers' association are authorised to be applied or invested.
- (4) If any financial benefits are to be available for members of the trade union or employers' association out of its property or funds, the rules must make provision as to the amounts of those benefits and the circumstances in which they are to be available to members.
- (5) The rules must specify the manner in which any rules of the trade union or employers' association can be made, altered or revoked.
- (6) The rules must make provision for the election or appointment of officers and for the manner in which officers can be removed from office.
- (7) The rules must make provision:—
- (a) for the election of a governing body and for its re-election at reasonable intervals;
- (b) for the manner in which members of the governing body can be removed from office.
- (8) If the trade union or employers' association has officials (whether they are shop stewards, workplace representatives or other officials) who are not officers of the trade union or employers' association, the rules must make provision for their election or appointment
518 and for the manner in which they can be removed from office.
- (9) The rules must make provision as to the manner in which, for any purposes of the trade union or employers' association, elections are to be held or ballots taken, including the following:—
- (a) notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates;
- (b) making of nominations;
- (c) canvassing or content of election addresses, where these are permitted;
- (d) elegibility for voting in any such election or ballot;
- (e) procedure preparatory to any election or ballot;
- (f) the procedure for counting and scrutiny of the votes and ballot papers; and
- (g) the procedure for the declaration or notification of the result of any such election or ballot.
- (10) The rules must specify the descriptions of persons who are eligible for membership of the trade union or employers' association or a branch or section of the trade union or employers' association and the procedure for dealing with applications for membership, including provisions for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications.
- (11) The rules must specify:—
- (a) the offences for which the trade union or employers' association is entitled under the rules to expel a member or take other disciplinary action, and the penalties applicable for each of those offences;
- (b) the procedure for the hearing of cases in which offences against the rules are alleged; and
- (c) the procedure with respect to appeals against any decision on any such hearing.
- (12) The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association or an officer of the trade union or employers' association.
- (13) In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice."
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
We shall take at the same time Lords amendment No. 6, in Clause 5, page 5, line 37, after "association" insertor that its rules do not comply with the provisions of this Act.
§ Mr. Booth
Lords Amendment No. 4 makes detailed provisions with which trade unions and employers' associations would have to comply in drawing up their rules. The amendment is based almost entirely on recommendations made by the Donovan Commission. It takes no account of the Trades Union Congress response to the adverse criticism by Donovan of some union rule books. That criticism was taken seriously by the TUC. It has resulted in considerable improvements being made to some trade union rule books so as to meet the Donovan criticisms.
It is worth recalling that the TUC decision at Croydon in 1969 resulted in the TUC advising its member unions that they should apply very much higher standards to their rule books than the standards which would be required by the Lords amendment which we are now considering. It might be useful to the House if I indicate some examples of the way in which the TUC guidance to unions exceeded the standards set out in the amendment.
The TUC guidance indicates that unions in framing their rules should include within the provisions the right of appeal by a member to a body of higher authority when a decision is taken by a lower body or a branch within the union which in any way disadvantages the member or subjects him to a fine.
The TUC guidance to unions on rules requires that the powers of the appeal body to reinstate a member or reimburse his fine should be covered clearly and specifically within the rules. The guidance requires that where an expelled member decides to exercise his right of appeal he should be entitled to retain his membership while he exercises that right. All of these provisions of rules required by the TUC circular to affiliated unions do not apply under or are not required by this amendment.
The TUC requirement requires a union to set out within its rule book who has 520 authority to call strikes and who has authority to end them. I hope to carry a large number of hon. Members opposite with me when I suggest that this is a rather important matter to have contained within the rules of a union. If we apply the same sort of consideration to employers' associations, as we must if we are to take the amendment seriously, presumably we would expect employers' association rules to require some very clear statement as to who has authority to order lockouts in certain cases and who has authority to terminate them.
The TUC went on to consider, in giving directions to unions on the requirements of their rule books, the machinery that a union should possess for dealing with complaints on the conduct of appeals within the union. All of these are matters which are perfectly proper for the TUC to require of its member unions to be within their rule books.
The House of Lords, by its amendment, apparently considers that these standards are not such as can be required by law. I believe that it is completely commensurate with the position we take that we should accept that, if we are to have higher standards of unions rules than those set out in the amendment, it can only be achieved and made effective by a body which commands the respect of and has the moral authority within the trade union movement to require unions to have higher standards of rule book. I therefore put it to the House that the higher standards achieved by the democratic machinery of responsible bodies in a free society is entirely desirable.
§ Sir Raymond Gower
It is not uncommon for professional bodies and other associations to have higher requirements than those required by the law. As the requirements in the Lords amendment do not exclude the TUC from having its own higher requirements, why does the hon. Gentleman object to these modest requirements in statutory form?
§ Mr. Booth
The Donovan Commission having made these criticisms, caused the TUC to require what should be done in advance of any consideration of legal requirements as to the register. I think that when any democratic machinery of responsible bodies, be they trade unions 521 or employers' associations, responds to the criticisms made by a Royal Commission, we should have proper regard for that fact. The House will surely consider it eminently desirable that we should not have to have recourse to law to obtain high standards of rules from democratic bodies in a free society. If we do, we are admitting to some extent that these bodies do not exercise the standards as democratic bodies that we would expect of them.
Lords Amendment No. 4 sets out lower standards by law, and we must acknowledge that those standards are inferior to what can be done by a free body of men and women, acting freely in response to what they see to be a genuine adverse criticism of one aspect of the way they conducted themselves.
§ Sir Edward Brown (Bath)
Surely the TUC is purely and simply an advisory body, and has been since its inception. It has no powers of its own. What if unions, having their own autonomy, decide to reject advice from the TUC, as some of them have done in the past? How will that support the case the hon. Gentleman is putting?
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Booth
In the last analysis, of course, the TUC expels a union which does not comply with the requirements which are considered by the affiliated unions as a whole to be standards proper for unions in membership of the TUC. The TUC has exercised that prerogative recently, and has shown the importance it attaches to member unions complying with certain requirements.
The TUC thought that the question of rules was sufficiently important to have a special congress. It got a unanimous decision on the proposition that the TUC should have the authority to issue its requirements of guidance on rules, and there is no suggestions that unions in general have not complied with that guidance. On the contrary, it is generally admitted that those few unions which were previously failing in this respect have generally responded to the TUC's wishes.
I do not contend that the last word has been spoken on this matter, or that the TUC might in future go even further and set yet higher standards for union 522 rules. I do contend that where a freely elected body can require of its membership such high standards of rules it is eminently desirable that it should do so. If we pass legislation setting lower standards, there is a danger—and I put it no higher—that trade unions or any other bodies faced with such a situation will say, "We are meeting the legal requirements, so why should we go further?"
But if there are no legal arguments, if there are no lower standards but only the high standards of bodies setting them freely, that is eminently to be desired. It is certainly better to have such standards than those minimum standards which may be enforced by law but which are lower than would have been freely produced.
I think that I can show that the point I am making on the enforcement or requirement to comply with the regulation of rules in Lords Amendment No. 4 is weak and would lead to defects and deficiencies. Lords Amendment No. 6 lays down the sanctions for non-compliance with these rule requirements.
The effect is to exclude from the list of unions kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies those unions which do not comply with the rules requirements. The main consequence for unions excluded from the list would be a loss of tax relief on their benevolent funds. We know that a number of unions, because of their failure to register under the 1971 Act, have lost the benefit of tax relief on their benevolent funds. It has not been a refractive means of requiring unions to register. Many have been prepared to forgo large amounts of tax relief rather than register.
There would also be certain other disadvantages for those unions which would not comply, including a difficulty or impediment in transferring property, which would be made somewhat easier for those unions which are registered. Unions may also have to go to some trouble to prove in a court that they are unions within the meaning of the Act in order to secure the immunity of Clause 11 of the Bill, but that is not my main complaint against this form of sanction.
My main complaint is that if one seeks as a sanction the debarment from a union of a right to have tax relief on its benevolent funds through failure to comply 523 with a details set of rules requirements which are far lower than the high standards set by the TUC, that is creating a situation which on the basis of experience of the 1971 Act would not necessarily secure compliance and may be bitterly resented.
I submit that we disagree with the Lords in both of the amendments.
§ Mr. Prior
We believe that the Bill should become the new basis of our labour law in this country. We have said that over and over again from the Official Opposition. We have always made clear that our purpose was to ensure that the country was no longer divided on this question and that it was united in facing up to the critical issues now before it.
We have always made clear, right from the time of our reasoned amendment on Second Reading, that it was our intention to ensure that the Bill would be a satisfactory basis for our future labour law. The difference between us and the Government is that we have felt the need to strike a rational balance between the conflicting interests at each point on the Bill, while the Government have never felt the need to argue the position they have taken up.
We seek to improve the Bill wherever we feel it may be improved. We in the House—indeed the Government themselves—have a duty to the nation to ensure that legislation reflects national rather than sectional interests.
On 10th July 1974 my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said:I am seeking, too, to defend Parliament and the people we represent, and I include the rights of unions and their members. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was right when he said that industrial relations legislation requires the consent of the unions. But it requires the consent not of the unions alone, still less of a mere powerful minority among them. It requires the consent of all work people, management and the great mass of our people inside and outside trade unions whom we represent in Parliament.My right hon. Friend also stated:An article in the Sun newspaper two days ago referred to this transfer of power from Parliament to the unions in these words:'Rarely, if ever, has Parliament offered so unconditional a surrender.'"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July 1974.]524 No one in the House could accept that for Parliament to offer such an unconditional surrender is a healthy position, and it is not one that the Secretary of State in any other capacity than that he now holds would have accepted for one moment. He would have been the first at the Dispatch Box, or below the Gangway, to say that it was a transferring of the rights of Parliament to a body outside Parliament.
It is in that considered way that we approach the amendment which the Government have moved to the Lords amendment. The Lords amendment writes into the Bill a set of rules which the Minister of State has said are the minimum he thinks right. He says that the trade unions have in many cases gone far beyond the rules and have accepted a set of rules and standards higher than the basic set of standards which we seek to write into the Bill.
It will not hurt or affect any union which already has a better set of rules. All it seeks to do is state the minimum set of rules. If the Government had wanted to say that the set of rules was not good enough they could have come along in Committee or on Report and produced a total set of rules which perhaps the trade unions are now putting into effect.
The Minister of State seeks to justify not writing the amendment into the Bill because he says it might result in unions going for lower standards than they have at the moment. I do not believe that unions, having set higher standards, will say that those standards are too high and that they will have a lower set of rules. That will not happen. Unions which have a higher standard will maintain that standard. We hope, as the Minister thinks, that all unions would do this. Not all unions have done so, as we understand. If they do not, this is a set of rules which they should follow.
Parliament ought to lay down the minimum standard on all matters of this kind. This is not a great issue of over-riding importance. I would have hoped that in view of what happened earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman might accept that this is a minimum requirement and not an unreasonable one. If unions have this higher standard of rules already they have nothing whatever to 525 fear from the second of the two amendments. This is merely a way of making certain that the set of rules that we have put in is enforced.
I do not suppose from what the Minister of State has said that it will apply to or affect more than a handful of unions. They will have to bring their set of rules up to the minimum standard required. That was put forward in "In Place of Strife" and was warmly supported by the Labour Government of that time. This is not designed to make the job of the unions
§ or of the TUC more difficult. It is plainly a matter of common sense.
§ For Parliament to pass the Bill without having some standards such as are laid down in the amendment would be a derogation of the duty of Parliament, and I hope that the House will take the same view as their Lordships.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 280.529
|Division No. 104.]||AYES||[5.30 p.m.|
|Archer, Peter||Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Ellis, John (Bragg & Scunthorpe)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Ashley, Jack||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Ashton, Joe||English, Michael||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)|
|Atkins, Ronald||Ennals, David||Judd, Frank|
|Atkinson, Norman||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Bagier, Gordon, A. T.||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Kelley, Richard|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)||Kerr, Russell|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Royton)||Faulds, Andrew||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Baxter, William||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Kinnock, Neil|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lamborn, Harry|
|Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Lamond, James|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Flannery, Martin||Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Boardman, H.||Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael||Lee, John|
|Booth, Albert||Ford, Ben||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Forrester, John||Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)||Lipton, Marcus|
|Bradley, Tom||Freeson, Reginald||Loughlin, Charles|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Galpern, Sir Myer||Loyden, Eddie|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn||George, Bruce||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)||Gilbert, Dr. John||McCartney, Hugh|
|Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wch)||Golding, John||MacCormick, Iain|
|Campbell, Ian||Gourley, Harry||McElhone, Frank|
|Cant, R. B.||Grant, George (Morpeth)||MacFarquhar, Roderick|
|Carter, Ray||Grant, John (Islington, C.)||McGuire, Michael|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)||McNamara, Kevin|
|Cocks, Michael||Hamling, William||Madden, M. O. F.|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hardy, Peter||Magee, Bryan|
|Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.||Harper, Joseph||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Conlan, Bernard||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Marquand, David|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)||Hattersley, Roy||Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hatton, Frank||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Meacher, Michael|
|Cryer, G. R.||Heffer, Eric S.||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S & F'sb'ry)||Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)||Mendelson, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hooley, Frank||Mikardo, Ian|
|Davidson, Arthur||Horam, John||Millan, Bruce|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)||Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Klibride)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Huckfield, Leslie||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Molloy, William|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Moonman, Eric|
|Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hunter, Adam||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)||Murray, Ronald King|
|Dempsey, James||Jackson, Colin||Newens, Stanley (Harlow)|
|Doig, Peter||Janner, Greville||Oakes, Gordon|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Ogden, Eric|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Dunn, James A.||Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Edelman, Maurice||John, Brynmor||Ovenden, John|
|Edge, Geoff||Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)||Owen, Dr. David|
|Padley, Walter||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)|
|Palmer, Arthur||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Parker, John (Dagenham)||Silverman, Julius||Watkins, David|
|Parry, Robert||Skinner, Dennis||Watt, Hamish|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Small, William||Weitzman, David|
|Perry, Ernest G.||Snape, Peter||Wellbeloved, James|
|Phipps, Dr. Colin||Spriggs, Leslie||White, James|
|Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg||Stallard, A. W.||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Prescott, John||Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)||Whitlock, William|
|Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)|
|Price, William (Rugby)||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Radice, Giles||Stott, Roger||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Reid, George||Strang, Gavin||Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)|
|Richardson, Miss Jo||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Swain, Thomas||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Robertson, John (Paisley)||Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)|
|Roderick, Caerwyn E.||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)|
|Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)||Tierney, Sydney||Wise, Mrs. Audrey|
|Rooker, J. W.||Tinn, James||Woodall, Alec|
|Rose, Paul B.||Tomlinson, John||Woof, Robert|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Tomney, Frank||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Rowlands, Edward||Torney, Tom||Young, David (Bolton, E.)|
|Sandelson, Neville||Tuck, Raphael|
|Selby, Harry||Urwin, T. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)||Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.||Mr. Thomas Cox and|
|Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)||Mr. Donald Coleman.|
|Adley, Robert||Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)||Gurden, Harold|
|Aitken, Jonathan||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Hall, Sir John|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Dixon, Piers||Hannam, John|
|Archer, Jeffrey||Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)||Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Hastings, Stephen|
|Awdry, Daniel||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Havers, Sir Michael|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Drayson, Burnaby||Hawkins, Paul|
|Beith, A. J.||Dykes, Hugh||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Bell, Ronald||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)||Dunlop, John||Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)|
|Berry, Hon. Anthony||Durant, Tony||Heseltine, Michael|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Eden, Rt. He. Sir John||Higgins, Terence|
|Blaker, Peter||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hill, James A.|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)||Elliott, Sir William||Holland, Philip|
|Boscawen, Hon. Robert||Emery, Peter||Hordern, Peter|
|Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)||Eyre, Reginald||Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)|
|Bradford, Rev. R.||Fairgrieve, Russell||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Farr, John||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)|
|Bray, Ronald||Fell, Anthony||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)|
|Brewis, John||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Hunt, John|
|Brittan, Leon||Fidler, Michael||Hurd, Douglas|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Finsberg, Geoffrey||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fookes, Miss Janet||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)||James, David|
|Buck, Antony||Fox, Marcus||Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std & W'fd)|
|Budgen, Nick||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Jessel, Toby|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Freud, Clement||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Fry, Peter||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)||Jopling, Michael|
|Carson, John||Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine|
|Channon, Paul||Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Kimball, Marcus|
|Churchill, W. S.||Glyn, Dr. Alan||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)||Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Clark, William (Croydon, S.)||Goodhart, Philip||Kirk, Peter|
|Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)||Goodhew, Victor||Kitson, Sir Timothy|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Goodlad, A.||Knight, Mrs. Jill|
|Clegg, Walter||Gorst, John||Knox, David|
|Cockcroft, John||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Lamont, Norman|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Lane, David|
|Cope, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Cormack, Patrick||Gray, Hamish||Latham, Michael (Melton)|
|Corrie, John||Grieve, Percy||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Costain, A. P.||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)|
|Critchley, Julian||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Crouch, David||Grist, Ian||Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)|
|Crowder, F. P.||Grylls, Michael||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)|
|Loveridge, John||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Sproat, Iain|
|Luce, Richard||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Stainton, Keith|
|MacArthur, Ian||Paisley, Rev. Ian||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Pardoe, John||Stanley, John|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)||Steel, David|
|MacGregor, John||Pattie, Geoffrey||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|McLaren, Martin||Percival, Ian||Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Stokes, John|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)||Pink, R. Bonner||Stradling Thomas, John|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Madel, David||Prior, Rt. Hn. James||Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Raison, Timothy||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Marten, Neil||Rathbone, Tim||Tebbit, Norman|
|Mather, Carol||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Maude, Angus||Redmond, Robert||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Townsend, C. D.|
|Mawby, Ray||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Trotter, Neville|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)||Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)||Tyler, Paul|
|Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Ridsdale, Julian||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Viggers, Peter|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)||Waddington, David|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Moate, Roger||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Wakeham, John|
|Molyneaux, James||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Money, Ernle||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)||Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Sainsbury, Tim||Wall, Patrick|
|Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Scott-Hopkins, James||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Mudd, David||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Winstanley, Dr. Michael|
|Neave, Airey||Shelton, Willam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Neubert, Michael||Shersby, Michael||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Newton, Tony (Braintree)||Silvester, Fred||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Sims, Roger||Worsley, Sir Marcus|
|Normanton, Tom||Sinclair, Sir George||Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)|
|Nott, John||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Onslow, Cranley||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Spence, John||Mr. W. Benyon.|
|Osborn, John||Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.