HC Deb 05 August 1975 vol 897 cc355-69
Mr. Cyril Smith

I beg to move Amendment No. 172, in page 71, line 24, leave out from 'shall' to 'inquire' in line 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are to take the following amendments:

No. 173, in page 71, line 39, at end insert: '(c) report to the Secretary of State within one year of the passing of this Act on the problems of low pay and policies intended to deal with it with particular reference to wages council industries and homeworkers. (d) publish any reports made under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above'. No. 174, in page 71, leave out line 40.

No. 175, in page 71, line 40, at end insert: 'The Service shall report to the Secretary of State within one year of the passing of this Act and each year thereafter on the problems of law pay and policies intended to deal with it with particular references to wages council industries and homeworkers'. No. 209, in Schedule 7, page 119, line 25, at end insert: '(1A) A wages council shall within three years of the passing of this Act set a minimum rate of remuneration of not less than £30 or 66 per cent. of average male earnings for all industries and services, whichever is the higher. The minimum rate of remuneration shall subsequently be maintained at a level not less than the specified minimum rate of remuneration. (1B) The Secretary of State shall have the power to call a meeting of the wages council where it appears that the specified minimum rate of remuneration will not be reached within the allotted time period or will not be maintained'. No. 210, page 119, line 26, at end insert: '(2)A(a) A Wages Council shall within three years of the passing of this Act set a minimum rate of remuneration of not less than £30 or 66 per cent. of average male earnings for all industries and services, whichever is the higher. The minimum rate of remuneration shall subsequently be maintained at a level not less than the specified minimum rate of remuneration. (b) The appropriate Wages Council shall ensure that the specified minimum rate of remuneration is reached within the allotted time period and that such rate is maintained and wherever ACAS is of the opinion that this will not be achieved, and so advises the Secretary of State he shall have power to instruct the specified Wages Council to implement the conditions of 2(A)(a) above. '

An Hon. Member

Where are the troops?

Mr. Cyril Smith

My troops will be arriving in a very short time. I represent a greater percentage of my party than the whole of hon. Members opposite at the moment represent their party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) must not filibuster until his hon. Friends arrive.

Mr. Smith

Amendment No. 172 requires that the service should inquire into the activities of wages councils and statutory joint industrial councils as a matter of course. As the Bill stands, it requires the service to do so if the Secretary of State requests it to do so. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that it is done, whether or not the Secretary of State requires it to be done. We believe that that is a vital duty which ought to be imposed by law.

Amendment No. 173 requires the service to report within one year on the problems of low pay and policies to deal with those problems, and it requires that the reports of those inquiries shall be published. That is a realistic attempt to ensure that the problems of low-paid workers are not overlooked, or swept under the carpet, or ignored.

Amendment No. 174 seeks to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 87 because that paragraph would be superfluous should Amendment No. 173 be accepted.

I now turn to Amendment No. 210. This amendment is a genuine attempt to make sure that over the next three years we move towards a system that makes certain that the lower-paid workers in our society receive a wage which is either £30 a week or 66 per cent. of average male earnings, whichever is the greater. It is an attempt to legislate to cover the lower-paid workers.

I would have thought—indeed, hoped—that those amendments would have found considerable favour with the Government, and particularly with a Government who claim to be a Labour Government. I am not sure whether they claim to be a Socialist Government or a Social Democratic Government, or whatever, but they certainly claim to be on the side of the workers and wage earners.

Many examples could be given to support the contention that the wages councils as we have known them have dismally failed the lower-paid workers. I doubt very much whether the SJICs will make much impact in mitigating that weakness or deficiency. Nine of the agreements made by wages councils in 1975 set minimum adult rates of less than £20 a week and 18 set rates of between £20 and £25 a week. In 1975, that kind of wage settlement is absolutely ludicrous and speaks very badly for the wages councils as they have existed. I do not come from a part of the country that is one of the leaders in the wages league table, but even in parts of Lancashire which are suffering from textile depression—which we are to debate tomorrow—wages of £20 or £25 a week would be considered derisory.

9.15 p.m.

Since the end of the Committee stage, the Government have moved away from free collective bargaining a little. I do not want to go into the question of whether they have gone for a statutory or a voluntary policy, but they have laid down guidelines relating to wage settlements and, by economic necessity, have shifted slightly from the situation of not being prepared to interfere in wage bargaining. In the light of the slight change in their policy, if they are able to interfere statutorily or play some part in wage bargaining in terms of the maximum amount an employer can pay, I invite the Government to consider whether they should seriously contemplate interfering in terms of the minimum wage an employer can give.

That is what these amendments are all about. If the Government are looking for an excuse for changing their mind, here it is. The Government's policy on wage bargaining has changed, and they are in the position, if only for a temporary period, of not being entirely on the side of free collective bargaining. They have a glorious opportunity to step in and do something to assist the lower paid.

I could give numerous examples of lower-paid workers, but I do not intend to bore the House with them. Many hon. Members will have received documents from the Low Pay Unit and if I gave examples I would largely be quoting from them. I shall put one or two on the record. In dressmaking, for example, the minimum rate for skilled female workers is 54.7p per hour—less than £22 for a 40-hour week. In tailoring, the new minimum rates for men, which were implemented in December 1974, are between £23 and £24 a week. For women the rate is £22 a week. In drapery and outfitting shops, £25 a week is the minimum wage for men. One could go on giving the example of food shops and cafes.

Mr. John Evans

I am sure that all hon. Members have had their hearts torn listening to the hon. Gentleman speaking about the position of low-paid workers. Does he agree, however, that some of us who served on the Committee for 30 sittings feel that he is being slightly hypocritical? He attended only 13 of the 30 meetings, and only one of the last 15 when these matters were being discussed. It would have been better if he had made these points in Committee and bored hon. Members there rather than on the Floor of the House. I would have thought a great deal more of him if he had done so.

Mr. Smith

In one sense, I am sorry I gave way to the hon. Member, but in another I am not sorry, because he has put on record the sort of childish, stupid and silly interventions which some hon. Members opposite make.

If the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) will contain himself for a moment I shall deal with the point that he has made. I am prepared, in terms of hours put in in this building during the Committee stage of the Bill, to back my attendance record against his and against any other hon. Member. I was unable to attend the Committee. The reason for that—and I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will bear with me, as the charge has been made and is on the record—was quite simply that I was given a change in duties after the Committee was formed.

For the hon. Gentleman's information, I attempted to make a change in my party's representation on the Committee. However, I was advised by the Committee of Selection that once a Bill had started it was not possible to change a Member on the Committee. Therefore, since I have become Chief Whip of the party in the meantime—[Interruption.] I find the amusement of the Government Whips interesting, because they never fail to pay daily visits to my office to find out how Liberal Members will act in the Lobby in the evening. Their derisory laughter will be borne in mind on the next occasion they pay a visit.

I consider the charge of the hon. Member for Newton to be an absolute disgrace, and unworthy of him. [Hon. Members: "It hurts."] It does not hurt in the slightest. It is true. Whether or not I was a member of the Committee, as a Member of this House I have a right to move amendments on Report and if Mr. Speaker calls those amendments, as he has done in this case, I have a right to move them. When we are talking about an important matter of 3 million workers in this country I am astonished that Labour Members have nothing better to do than make personal attacks on people who move amendments, instead of dealing with the merits or demerits of those amendments.

I fully understand that many hon. Members, some of whom are sensible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have, rightly, allowed the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. The hon. Gentleman rightly stated the position when he said that he is entitled to move amendments on Report. He is equally entitled to speak on them.

Mr. Smith

Yes, and I do not find the plight of the lower paid as amusing as some Labour Members. When I was interrupted I was referring to the disgraceful wages being paid to some of the lower-paid workers in this country. I can well understand the embarrassment caused to Labour Members when figures of this kind are read out, because they are wage settlements made during the lifetime of their Government. I mentioned settlements of £22 a week. The Government must be proud of their record.

I want a national minimum wage laid down by statute—a policy for which I have argued in this House during the three years I have been a Member of Parliament. [An Hon. Member: "How much?"] If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the beginning of the debate he would know, because I quoted the figure in moving the amendment. I suggest that in order to help his education he reads Hansard tomorrow.

The Government have been willing, in their wages and economic policy, and in the Bill put through the House last week and the week before, to listen to the advice of Mr. Jack Jones, of the Transport and General Workers' Union—the first man to float the idea of a £6-a-week, across-the-board increase, or certainly the first to suggest it in public. Having listened to his advice in relation to their statutory wages policy, or voluntary wages policy that can be enforced by law, the Government should also listen to his advice in respect to the amendments and the need for a statutory minimum wage. The Transport and General Workers' Union is in favour of a statutory minimum wage. It has published pamphlets arguing the case for it forcefully and logically. This is not the first time that I have drawn the attention of the House to those pamphlets. If the Government listened carefully to the advice of Mr. Jack Jones on the matter, they would find it possible to accept the amendments.

The Minister will argue that by moving to SJICs, and thus to freer collective bargaining between management and trade unions, they are likely to obtain better results for lower-paid workers. I wish that I could share his optimism, but the fact is that trade union organisation is extremely difficult among the lower paid. For example, the average laundry employs 27 people. Sixty-six per cent. of dressmaking firms employ 25 or fewer employees. In clothing and shoe shops, 440,000 workers work in 55,000 establishments. Clearly, in those circumstances trade union organisation is not easy. That is why I do not believe that SJICs are likely to prove any more effective than wages councils have been in raising the living standards and wages of the lower paid.

The lower paid must be protected and helped by the process of law if progress is ever to be made towards raising their living standards and wages. If the Minister believes that SJICs will raise the wages of the lower paid, that is no reason not to accept the amendments, because they have effect only if progress is not made. They deliberately say that if the Minister is satisfied that progress to reasonable wage rates is being made he need take no action. He is urged, required or enabled by the amendments to take action only if he is of the opinion, after having had a report, that sufficient progress is not being made.

I cannot understand why there should be any reluctance to accept the amendments, or why the Government should not want to be given power to protect the lower paid—power which they need invoke only if they are satisfied that the lower paid are not getting a fair deal. I cannot believe that 66 per cent. of average male earnings is an unreasonable figure, or that it will break the bank. What it will do is to make a lasting attack on poverty and contribute to raising the living standards of the workers, over 3 million of whom are covered by existing wages councils.

I believe that a Government concerned about workers and fair play, and determined to do something about the lower paid, will accept the amendments, or at least accept their spirit and introduce their own amendments in another place. The fact is that in any democratic and humane society the strong have to exert their power in order to help the weak. The strong in this case are the Government. The weak are the lower-paid members of our society.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker

I apologise to the House for being unable to reply as briefly as either I or the House would wish, but the hon. Gentleman has dealt with a large group of important amendments. He will recall that, in winding up the debate on Second Reading, I spent a considerable part of my speech dealing with the amendments from the Liberal bench, and in particular those which followed the same line as his amendments this evening.

Listening to him, I found it rather difficult to reconcile his concern for the low paid with his support in the Standing Committee for the Opposition amendment to deny the privileges, benefits and rights contained in this Bill to people who work in small units. The House will know that many of the people employed in wages council industries are employed in small units. There is an extraordinary contradiction between the hon. Gentleman's attitude on that issue and the speech he has made tonight.

Dealing first of all with Amendments Nos. 172, 173 and so on, it is the intention that ACAS should report on the development of collective bargaining in wages council industries on a regular and systematic basis. But ACAS does not have the resources to investigate and report on all wages council industries each year. In any event, in the case of a number of wages council industries, formal investigations would be to little purpose, since it is well known that no real movement in the evolution of voluntary machinery has taken place. It should be able to cover all those industries that are worth investigating over a period of years. The clause as drafted will ensure that the Secretary of State has some control over the programme.

In addition, there is provision in Clause 87 for the Secretary of State to request the service to inquire into and report on negotiating machinery in the wages council field, and whether wages council orders are necessary in order to maintain a reasonable standard of pay and conditions, as well as the general operation of the Act in relation to wages councils and statutory joint industrial councils.

Furthermore, Schedule 11 provides for an independent trade union to report a claim that an employer is observing terms and conditions of employment less favourable than the recognised terms and conditions of employment or, where there are no recognised terms and conditions, the general level of terms and conditions.

Schedule 11 also provides in Part II for a claim to be reported to the service, as respects a member of an independent trade union working within the field of a wages council, a statutory joint industrial council or an agricultural wages board, that his employer is paying him less than the lowest collectively negotiated rate of pay that applies in a significant number of establishments covered by the wages council, and so on, where the circumstances of the employer are similar.

Then, in addition, the reports of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth on its standing reference should provide from time to time material relevant to the consideration of policy concerning low pay.

Taken together, these initiatives represent a considerable development in the arrangements for dealing with the problems of low pay. These arrangements make the hon. Gentleman's amendments unnecessary.

The substance of both the hon. Gentleman's speech and his amendments is to be found in his Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 and his statement about the nine wages councils with minimum adult rates under £20 per week. The hon. Gentleman took those figures from the report of the Low Pay Unit. I know that he relied heavily for his source material on the information which it supplied. My Department takes the Low Pay Unit's reports seriously. We look carefully at what the unit says and at its sources of information. We have not been able to verify the existence of nine wages councils. We find that there are three which make settlements, although I do not make any great point of that.

I want to give the reasons why we are opposed to these amendments. The hon. Gentleman and I knew each other long before we entered Parliament. I do not question his sincerity in helping the low paid and I am sure that he will not question mine. There is no difference between us on the issue of seeking to help the low paid. That is common ground. What is between us is how best we can tackle the problem.

On Second Reading I said that the wages council machinery and trade boards were set up in 1909. However, all these years have passed and by and large the same industries are still low paid. The wages council system has not worked. A fresh approach is necessary to facilitate the growth of collective bargaining in those industries. Therefore we have made provision for them to convert themselves into the statutory joint industrial councils with wider functions. The wages councils will therefore have wider functions. We have provided for the wages councils to make the retrospective payments which they have not been able to make up to now. That inability has hit the workers in wages councils industries very hard. We are providing a limited degree of retrospection in the making of council orders.

We are also extending the scope of their bargaining, which until now has been limited. We must open this area to them so that they can determine pay and holidays and other terms and conditions of employment. The statutory joint councils will also be able to engage in those activities.

We seek to move towards collective bargaining. The hon. Gentleman's approach would go the opposite way and perpetuate the wages council system. It would ossify and fossilise the wages councils and make it much more difficult for them to break into the area of free collective bargaining. This is a matter of approach. The hon. Gentleman proposes an unprecedented step in the direction of a statutory incomes policy. That is implicit in the proposal. He frankly admitted that he was a long-standing advocate of a statutory incomes policy. The Liberal Party is in a minority on this matter.

Mr. Cyril Smith

At the moment.

Mr. Walker

History has taught those of us who have been round the statutory incomes policy course that that is the wrong way. We have learnt that as a result of direct experience.

Mr. Cyril Smith

Has the Minister read the results of the Gallup Poll? The result of that poll showed a considerable majority in favour of a statutory incomes policy.

Mr. Walker

I concede that to the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to the members of my party in my constituency, some of whom support a statutory incomes policy as long as it applies to someone else. But when I ask each individual about his own pay, there is a different story. No doubt there would be a different story from all those interviewed by the Gallup Poll. They think that an incomes policy is very good for the country but that it should not be applied to them.

In the period 1966 to 1970 I defended the then Government's pay policy. The Gallup Polls then showed support for the Government's policy. But some of those who supported that policy came knocking at my door, accompanied by their employees, saying that there should be exceptions.

I have given reasons why I think that the House should reject the hon. Gentleman's amendments. The third reason is the provision contained in Schedule 9 in relation to wages council industries. It is an extension of the provisions that were originally contained in Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959.

For those three reasons—first, our belief that the right way is to proceed through collective bargaining, secondly, our objection to a statutory incomes policy and, thirdly, the additional instruments we have provided for fighting against low pay—I advise the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Hayhoe

The question of low pay was dealt with briefly in our debate in the second sitting of the Committee which followed the lines of today's debate. The amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who, as today, relied heavily upon the information produced by the Low Pay Unit and the Low Pay Bulletins" which are sent to most, if not all, hon. Members. Despite the comments of the Under-Secretary of State that there are elements of inaccuracy in them, they make a valuable contribution to the general information in this sphere, as the Minister made clear in his comments.

The amendments fall into two categories. Amendment No. 173 calls for reports. We considered this matter in Committee and there is a provision in Clause 87 which could be used to enable the service to produce the sort of report we have in mind. One of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth is as follows: We noted in Chapter 4 that the proportion of total personal income received by the 20 per cent. group of lowest income recipients had changed little since the end of the 1950s before and after the payment of income tax. The composition of this group of low income recipients and the make-up of their incomes are matters we wish to study because they may throw light on this part of the distribution of income. It is clear that the Royal Commission will be engaged in a further study, and I hope that it moves in parallel or in harmony with the service in that respect.

Mr. Clemitson

I do not know how up to date the figures are, but in phase 1 of the pay guidelines of the social contract is there not considerable evidence that the poorer-paid workers and women in general did better than the average?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am not sure that it will help to speed our proceedings to begin a discussion on how effective was the social contract in that sphere, but it is true that the information that the Royal Commission had tended to filter away as it moved closer to the present date. I imagine that on both sides of the House there would be a welcome for more information on these matters.

Amendment No. 210 and the amendments to the schedule deal with the setting of a target for a minimum wage which is a percentage of average earnings. The danger of that approach is that it provides an in-built pressure towards ever-increasing escalation. If one takes the lowest group and raises it to within two-thirds of the average, one automatically raises the average. So one starts the process again, raises the lowest element up to two-thirds of the average and the average is raised again. It depends how quickly that process goes on, but it is the classic case of chasing after one's tail and results in the spiralling upwards of inflation.

I believe that there are great dangers to which we may return when we consider the provisions of Clause 89 and Schedule 11. I believe that in all parts of the House there is the desire to improve the conditions of the low paid. Indeed, the incomes policy or the remuneration policy, if I may call it that, of the present Government, like that of previous Governments, has tended to give priority to the position of the low paid in the norms or targets that they set. Nevertheless, the approach set out in the latter of these amendments is wrong. The statutory approach of setting a percentage of average earnings would lead to grave difficulties.

I hope that we shall get more information about the position of the low paid. In Committee the Minister said that he would at a later stage indicate just how many of the low paid were in the public sector. My own belief is that many more are within the public sector than there should be. Although the Minister has not given us the figures today, I hope that he will pay attention to that matter.

In my view the principles behind Amendment No. 173 commend themselves to the House although probably the amendment itself is unnecessary. I also believe that the other linked amendments

should not commend themselves to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 10, Noes, 202.

Division No. 327.] AYES [9.47 p.m.
Crawford, Douglas Penhaligon, David
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Steel, David (Roxburgh) Mr. Cyril Smith and
Henderson, Douglas Watt, Hamish Mr. Richard Wainwright.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Welsh, Andrew
Allaun, Frank Freeson, Reginald Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Anderson, Donald Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mendelson, John
Archer, Peter Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Mikardo, Ian
Armstrong, Ernest George, Bruce Millan, Bruce
Ashton, Joe Gilbert, Dr John Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Gould, Bryan Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Atkinson, Norman Gourlay, Harry Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Bean, R. E. Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Molloy, William
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Grant, George (Morpeth) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Bidwell, Sydney Hamilton, W. W. (Central File) Moyle, Roland
Bishop, E. S. Hardy, Peter Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Booth, Albert Harper, Joseph Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Newens, Stanley
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Hatton, Frank Noble, Mike
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Hayman, Mrs Helene Orbach, Maurice
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Healey, Rt Hon Denis Ovenden, John
Buchanan, Richard Heffer, Eric S. Palmer, Arthur
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Hooley, Frank Park, George
Carter-Jones, Lewis Horam, John Parker, John
Clemitson, Ivor Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Parry, Robert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Pavitt, Laurie
Cohen, Stanley Huckfield, Les Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Pendry, Tom
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Mark (Durham) Perry, Ernest
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Phipps, Dr Colin
Corbett, Robin Hunter, Adam Prescott, John
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Crawshaw, Richard Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Price, William (Rugby)
Cunningham, Dr J. (whiteh) Janner, Greville Radice, Giles
Dalyell, Tam Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Richardson, Miss Jo
Davidson, Arthur Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Johnson, James (Hull West) Roberts, Gwilym (Carmock)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Barry (East Flint) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rooker, J. W.
Deakins, Eric Judd, Frank Roper, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Kerr, Russell Ryman, John
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Kilroy-Silk, Robert Sedgemore, Brian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Lamborn, Harry Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Dempsey, James Lamond, James Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Dormand, J. D. Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Sillars, James
Dunn, James A. Litterick, Tom Silverman, Julius
Dunnett, Jack Loyden, Eddie Skinner, Dennis
Eadie, Alex Luard, Evan Small, William
Edelman, Maurice Lyon, Alexander (York) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Edge, Geoff Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Snape, Peter
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) McCartney, Hugh Spriggs, Leslie
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) MacFarquhar, Roderick Stallard, A. W.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Mackenzie, Gregor Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
English, Michael Maclennan, Robert Stoddart, David
Ennals, David McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Madden, Max Swain, Thomas
Evans, John (Newton) Magee, Bryan Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Mahon, Simon Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Faulds, Andrew Marks, Kenneth Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Flannery, Martin Marquand, David Tinn, James
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Tuck, Raphael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Urwin, T. W.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mason, Rt Hon Roy Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Forrester, John Maynard, Miss Joan Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ward, Michael Whitlock, William Woodall, Alec
Watkins, David Williams, Alan (Swansea W) Woof, Robert
Watkinson, John Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Weetch, Ken Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) Young, David (Bolton E)
Weitzman, David Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wellbeloved, James Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
White, Frank R. (Bury) Wilson, William (Coventry SE) Miss Margaret Jackson and
Whitehead, Phillip Wise, Mrs Audrey Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to