HC Deb 29 October 1975 vol 898 cc1613-31

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 8, line 41, after "union" insert "or an employer".

Mr. Booth

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 13.

Mr. Booth

The effect of these amendments would be to enable an employer to refer a recognition issue to the ACAS under Clause 11, and this would have the effect of requiring the Service to examine the issue under Clause 12 and to publish a written report. The provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 are intended to provide a trade union with a right of appeal against a refusal by an employer to recognise that union. Trade unions and employers are, in our view, not in the same position on recognition issues. It will always be the case that an employer can agree to recognise a union on an application to him, and therefore he can never be in the same position as the union where he is discussing with it terms of recognition.

I believe that employers' need of ACAS on recognition issues is very limited, and it applies only in relatively rare circumstances. The amendment does not face up to this.

The House may be interested to learn of the number of requests which have come forward to ACAS in its first year of operation on conciliation in recognition cases, and the sources from which they came. In its first year of operation ACAS received 411 requests from trade unions for conciliation in recognition cases, 43 from employers, and 39 jointly. Thus, unions were involved in applications covering 91 per cent. of all requests for conciliation, whereas employers were involved in only 17 per cent.

Those facts tend to show that ACAS has been able to take on board requests for conciliation—in fact, in three cases it has even initiated conciliation activities in recognition cases—and there has been no reluctance on the part of those involved to come forward to ACAS in this way. I hope, therefore, that the House will be encouraged to believe that the great majority of recognition problems may well be solved under the conciliation provisions of the Bill.

However, where employers require the services of ACAS on recognition matters it must be recognised that they will stand in a position different from that of trade unions. Employers may require the services of ACAS where there is disagreement as to which union should be recognised, or the purpose for which it should be recognised. In rare cases there may be fear of a dispute, or there may on an employer's part be a lack of knowledge as to the degree of support enjoyed by a union which claims recognition rights, especially in a case where a union is claiming sole recognition rights.

Cases of this sort, which are peculiar to employers, may raise very complex issues, and the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12 are not ideally suited for that purpose. We accept that an employer has a right to refer—indeed, we welcome the fact that employers are already referring these issues to ACAS as it exists at present on an administrative basis—but where a dispute either exists on recognition or is apprehended by an employer, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 2 for this purpose. Second, if an employer is seeking advice on questions of recognition, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 4; and third, where he wants ACAS to inquire into and report upon a recognition issue, he may make use of the provisions of Clause 5.

Although recognition disputes are rare, and lack of collective bargaining machinery in attempts to obtain recognition presents serious issues, it should be appreciated that where employers' recognition problems exist they can be complex and are best helped by ACAS if handled carefully and with the maximum flexibility. If ACAS is permitted to do this under the wide range of powers at present in the Bill as we wish it to be, that will best serve the cause of industrial relations, and, whatever disagreements there may be on this issue, I hope that we are at one in acknowledging that, if recognition matters can be solved on a conciliation basis, that will be more likely to achieve a good industrial relations result.

Mr. Hayhoe

I urge the House to accept the Lords amendment. The Minister's argument—if one can give it the credit of that description, since it was, at best, tissue-thin—made no case for rejecting the Lords amendment. The truth is that the Government's stand here is wholly wrong. They are being blatantly partisan in seeking to eliminate from the Bill an amendment which would give equality of access to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for both unions and employers on recognition issues. They seek to deny that equality of access, saying that employers shall not be permitted to use Clause 11 as a means of referring recognition issues to ACAS.

In many ways this is a key amendment. Although the change of wording is small, the principle behind it is substantial. Throughout our consideration of this matter in Committee and on Report—when the Government gave as broad a hint as one could have that they were looking sympathetically at the possibility of finding a way which would be convenient to them to meet our case—and throughout the debates in another place, the Government's attitude seemed to show an unwillingness to act in furtherance of any view which is not accepted by the trade unions.

As many of us have said from the outset, this is not an Employment Protection Bill but a trade union benefit Bill, and presumably this is part of the legislative Danegeld which the Secretary of State and the Labour Government have to pay to the barons of the TUC for their support in other ways.

No argument has been adduced to show why equality of access should be denied to employers. So far as one can judge, not content with all the various benefits and advantages which the leaders of the TUC have demanded and obtained from the Government it is the leadership rather than the membership of the TUC who are here concerned, I believe—those leaders are now apparently not prepared to permit employers the same access to this new independent and important service as they have for themselves.

Why not? What are they afraid of? What are they seeking to defend by resisting the proposal that employers should have equality of access? The Minister of State has given no indication of that. Indeed, parts of his speech could well have been used in support of the Lords Amendment, for he called in aid the number of applications so far made to ACAS: 83 per cent. from trade unions, 9 per cent. from employers and some 8 per cent. made jointly, so that 91 per cent of applications had a union attachment to them and 17 per cent. had an employer attachment to them.

The Minister argues that approximately 10 per cent. of referrals, a substantial proportion, should now not take place under Clause 11. It is 17 per cent. if one takes the joint figure, but if the Lords amendment is eliminated 8 per cent. out of that 17 per cent. could be made because they would be made not jointly but only by the union. Thus, on the Minister's figures 9 per cent. of applications could not be made under Clause 11 in the way we think they should be.

It is not altogether surprising that the Minister has given no argument in support of rejecting the Lords amendment, because I cannot believe that there is any such argument which would commend itself to the House. On the other hand, we have heard what I can only call a rather sly and semi-sympathetic story about how employers can involve ACAS in matters of this kind in other ways. Having barred the front door of ACAS to employers, presumably on orders from the TUC, Ministers now give advice about how employers may break in at the back door or climb in through a window. What a degrading spectacle!

On Report, on 30th July—this is col. 1968 of Hansard—the Minister accepted that that back-door or side-window approach was not wholly satisfactory. At that stage he seemed anxious to help, or so one thought, saying that he was prepared to consult the TUC to seek an accommodation between TUC voluntary procedures and any new statutory procedure. The negotiations do not seem to have been very satisfactory, however, and no accommodation has been reached.

4.30 p.m.

I should like to say a little about the TUC voluntary procedures which are known as the Bridlington and Croydon procedures. Over the years they have been used in a variety of cases. Since we debated this matter on Report, we have had the benefit of advice from Lord George-Brown in another place about how Bridlington operates. I understand that I cannot directly quote his words, and I should not wish to do so, but perhaps I may summarise the argument which he put forward. In effect, he said that decisions on the Bridlington and Croydon procedures are not made on the basis of what the union members want or to take account of the options and desires of the individuals concerned. However, they are made on a horse-trading basis between the big unions—not necessarily between the unions which are involved in the specific dispute—and are a mutual back-scratching exercise between trade union leaders.

We have also had the evidence of an action before the High Court. The Bridlington decision was the cause of an action between Rothwell and the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff and the TUC. This was the APEX—ASTMS—TUC "saga". SAGA is not a description of what went on but denotes the staff association of the General Accident Insurance Group.

There was a carve-up between the members of the TUC as to which was the appropriate union for members of that staff association to join, without any real consideration being given to the views of the staff association. APEX loyally undertook to follow the obligation which it felt it had assumed by membership of the TUC and by one of its own rules to give effect to the decisions of the TUC machinery concerning recognition. However, the matter ended up in the High Court, and the arrangement which had been laid down by the TUC was rejected by the court. The matter has now gone back to all concerned to be considered again.

I have referred to the evidence of Lord George-Brown, who is certainly someone who knows his way around the trade union world, but there is plenty of other evidence. Will Paynter, a distinguished trade unionst who joined the CIR during the last Government, wrote an article about the inter-union dispute machinery of the TUC in the Political Quarterly just after the 1970 election. He made it clear that what mattered was not so much the merits of the case as what the big battalions of the TUC wanted to happen. Therefore, we do not accept that the Bridlington procedures are entirely satisfactory. However, I should not wish to be as rude about them as was Lord George-Brown.

I accept that these procedures have helped in the past and that they certainly can help, but I do not believe that they are so perfect that it would be proper for the House to deny employers equality of access by the front door to ACAS on recognition issues.

The Government, by seeking to deny such access, are being somewhat untrue and inconsistent to themselves. If they look at one of their own draft Statutory Instruments—the Draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1975—they will find Article 7, which is headed "Recognition of trade unions". Northern Ireland does not have an Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to consider these matters, but it does have a Labour Relations Agency. In the terms of the draft Statutory Instrument which has been issued for consultation, there is equality of access by "an independent trade union"—that is the same as in Britain— or an employer who is a party to the dispute. Therefore, what is proposed for employers in the somewhat different circumstances of Northern Ireland is what we want for employers in this country.

The amendment is a talisman of how the Government are approaching the whole question of the involvement of ACAS in industrial disputes. If, with all the strength of their conviction, they seriously wanted to ensure that ACAS had an independent rôle and independent procedures associated with it, they would not seek to dismiss and eliminate the Lords amendment. The Government ask us to reject what I believe is a reasonable and sensible point of view which has been added to the Bill in another place. In seeking to deny equality of access to employers the Government are wrong, unfair, deeply biased and inconsistent. However, perhaps it is not all that surprising because one can find many other issues in which similar descriptions could be attached to their point of view.

I hope that the House will be right, fair and consistent and remove the bias which the elimination of the Lords amendment would leave on the statute book.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer (Kidderminster)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe). I, too, believe that the amendment goes some way towards redressing the imbalance in the Bill. The Minister of State has rightly said that the number of inter-union disputes is not great. However, for an employer even one dispute can be too many. They can be expensive in time and money. I believe that the employer should have proper recourse to the ACAS. I should have thought that the Department would have reached the view that the case put forward by the Lords was reasonable and could be accepted.

In the debate in another place the Government spokesman, Lord Jacques, put forward three reasons for resisting the amendment. The first was referred to by the Minister of State when he said that the employer can, of course, refer under Clauses 2, 4 or 5. The wording of the Bill is that the Service shall take such action "as it thinks fit". This language contrasts strongly with "The Service shall do this and that" when trade union interests are the subject of the provisions.

If it is the Government's intention that employers should have recourse to the services of the ACAS in an inter-union dispute which threatens their interests, surely the Government could find a way of spelling out clearly and unconditionally how that should be done.

The second reason advanced by Lord Jacques was that machinery already existed under the Bridlington and Croydon procedures. But Lord Jacques and the Minister said nothing about what happens if the unions do not care to use those procedures. The unions usually care not to use those procedures for one of two reasons: either that the case is bad or that they think they can get their way by strength of numbers or force.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to an example of a situation which an employer might wish to refer. The case in question involved 30 maintenance assistants who in 1972 notified their resignation from the TGWU although this was not originally accepted. Eventually, having taken legal advice, they joined the Association of Metalworkers, a registered trade union. In September 1974 the TGWU demanded that the work of maintenance assistants should be carried out only by its members and indicated that process operators would refuse to operate any plant which had been worked by a non-TGWU maintenance assistant. It proved impossible to persuade the unions to settle the issue through trade union channels. The company was unwilling to discharge the men and the TGWU was unwilling to allow them to work. As an interim measure they were placed on a protracted training course and the company requested the assistance of ACAS, which had just been set up. The TGWU was not initially willing to deal with ACAS, but its assistance proved most useful and eventually the maintenance assistants were persuaded to rejoin the TGWU, which agreed to open a separate section of its branch to receive them.

Nobody will deny that the employer had a legitimate interest. Nobody will deny that he lost out through the delay. Nobody will deny that the Service did what it was there to do. Therefore, I ask the Minister: why not give the employer the right to call in the Service?

The third reason given by Lord Jacques was that the employer was in difficulty only when one of the parties was not affiliated or when the TUC had failed to produce a settlement. Lord Jacques called it a situation of the greatest difficulty and delicacy."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 22nd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 84.] In effect, the Government seem to be saying, "This is difficult and delicate. Do not interfere, regardless of the injustice which is being done."

Employers are not fools. They know when a situation should be left alone. But difficult and delicate problems do not go away. They have to be resolved. Surely it is the function of the Service to see that they are resolved.

I should like to give another example to the Minister. I quote: The dispute is one between ASTMS and our in-company Management Association. This latter was set up by the managers themselves and is really an in-company union with which we actually negotiate. The problem arose because ASTMS had members among our junior staff on the site. Since clearly the clerical staff wished to be represented by ASTMS, we willingly signed a full negotiating procedural agreement with them. There were other junior staff not in this clerical group who had joined ASTMS and we wanted to give them the same rights either as a separate group or as part of the clerical group. ASTMS have repeatedly refused to take up this offer because they have a few members in our senior staff group and they clearly wished to out-vote the senior staff by their membership among the larger junior staff group. We claim our senior staff are a national company-wide common interest group whereas ASTMS see part or all of the senior staff as a purely local resource. We have repeatedly said that we have no objection to giving negotiating rights to ASTMS for our senior staff if this is the majority wish of the national common interest group, but…our senior staff are currently strongly in favour of maintaining their independence. Hon. Members who studied the Industrial Democracy Bill sponsored in this Session by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) will recall that one of its provisions was that a two-tier board should be established at the request of an independent trade union recognised for bargaining purposes. It is not impossible that the Government will introduce legislation on those lines in future.

Given the disagreement within the trade union movement at present over membership of such boards, it is to be feared that disputes over recognition may increase and that the need for the employers to invite the help of the Service will also increase.

The example which I have cited touches on one issue—management representation—which has been much exercising the European Parliament. The debate on the structure of two-tier boards is clearly one of which we shall hear more.

My purpose in raising the matter here is to express my fear that it may provide a fruitful field for inter-union disputes in future and to argue that, if that should be the case, it is further evidence of the need for the Lords amendment.

4.45 p.m.

In conclusion, the Government's case seems to be that the amendment is not needed because the employer may refer disputes under Clauses 2, 4 and 5, yet there is no obligation on the Service to take action. The Government argue that because Bridlington exists there is no need to take action. Yet there is no obli- gation on the union to use it. Because disputes involving non-affiliated unions are too sensitive for Parliament or employers to intervene, and no action should be taken, the employer is left naked. That may be the trade unions' intention, but it is no basis for legislation which seeks to stand the test of time on the rock of natural justice.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I support the Lords amendment. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his colleagues will wish to remove from the legislation and their attitude to it any suggestion that they might appear to be biased too much in favour of the trade unions or of the employers. This amendment would give them the opportunity of showing their absolute neutrality towards both employers and unions over recognition. Surely that is what the inhabitants of St. James's Square would wish to show. It is important that in industrial relations there should be absolute fairness. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not wish to alter the Bill as it has been amended by the other place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), who was most persuasive, spoke about an inter-union dispute over recognition with a particular company. I should like to take the matter a little earlier—to the stage when there is inter-union disagreement.

I suggest that the Bill should try to make ACAS more of what might be termed a fire prevention organisation to ensure that the conflagration does not happen than a fire brigade to be called in after the fire has started. It seems fair that an employer should have the opportunity of taking to ACAS a disagreement between unions about recognition before it leads to a dispute.

Subsection (2) of the clause is particularly relevant here because it refers to recognition of the union by an employer, or two or more associated employers". Again, we could have a situation where different employers in the same industry, and possibly in the same industrial federation or confederation, might recognise that different unions should cover the same kind of employees. Therefore, it must be fair for employers to be given the opportunity of making an appeal to ACAS. It is altogether too tortuous to say that a recognition dispute by a union refers to recognition by the union of an employer and that if the word "employer" were included it would mean that the employer was trying to get recognition by the union. That argument has been put forward, but it does not bear too much examination.

I hope that, in a fair and ecumenical frame of mind, the Minister will accept the rejection of the Government's motion as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth.

Mr. Booth

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that I had not made the case for not having complete equality of access under Clauses 11 and 12, but I rested my whole case on the proposition that employers and unions were not equal in this matter, could not be equal, and that nothing we did through the law would ever make them equal. It is like trying to make men and women equal in a particular sense.

Mr. Hayhoe

We cannot make men and women equal by law, but we have legislated to try to give them equality of access in certain respects. That is all we are seeking now.

Mr. Booth

Perhaps we are quarrelling about the definition of equality of access, but we do not try to give men and women equality of access to the same lavatories. We face the fact that different people have different needs.

Employers' and unions' needs, in the context of these clauses, must be essentially different. If we wanted to achieve absolute neutrality by legislation, we would have to take away from employers the right to decide whether they wished to recognise trades unions. We would have to make this the job of another body, but that is not the proposition of those who support the amendment. Their proposition is that an employer should be left to say "Yes" or "No" and that if he seeks to exercise another course he should be able to do so. That is not creating absolute neutrality—far from it.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred to the number of employers who had made requests for conciliation in recognition cases and claimed they would not have been able to do so if the Bill had been enacted. He shows his complete failure to understand what the Bill proposes. Employers would have been able to act in this way anyway. The Bill will provide for other courses to be open to them. I resent the description of the access provided in Clauses 2, 4 and 5 as a back-door method. These are the cases where absolute parity is possible. If we had given absolute parity under Clauses 11 and 12, Opposition Members would not have described that as a back-door method. We are recognising the different functions carried out by trade unions and employers.

If hon. Members opposite wanted to apply the case for absolute neutrality against the test of the Industrial Democracy Bill, as one of them suggested, they would have to argue for an equal number of places for workers and shareholders on boards. They do not argue that, because they recognise that we are arguing about different functions in this matter.

Reference was also made to Lord George-Brown's remarks in another place. Whatever qualifications Lord George-Brown may possess, he never served on the Bridlington committee. He was a full-time Member of this House before the Croydon conference took place. It is no part of my case that the construction of Clauses 11 and 12 and what flows from them depend on the perfection of the Bridlington machinery. That would be ridiculous. Bridlington cannot deal with cases where two unions—one a TUC union—both claim recognition by an employer in exactly the same area. It is advisable that we have access, through more flexible provisions, by employers, so that when they wish to raise this matter ACAS is in a position to form a judgment whether it is better for certain cases to be dealt with under the Bridlington machinery because they will be more likely to be resolved by that method than by ACAS taking them on board. This is an area where judgment should be held to rest not in this House but with ACAS.

Clauses 11 and 12 are bound to lead to a means by which unions can ultimately determine terms and conditions against a recalcitrant employer. It cannot work the other way round and achieve a position in which an employer, having got a decision from ACAS, can force a union into the courts to determine terms and conditions on behalf of its members. That demonstrates the nonsense of the whole idea of equality of access and absolute neutrality in this matter. I very much hope that Clauses 11 and 12 will be needed only in a minority of cases, that most employers will meet reasonable requests for recognition, and that when there are disputes they will be settled by the conciliation provisions. However, when a trade union has to proceed in the face of a recalcitrant employer, there must be machinery which can finally determine terms and conditions.

The amendment is totally unsuitable in a part of the Bill concerned with those rare and unfortunate cases in which unions have to deal with recalcitrant employers. If we need to have a determination obtained through the statute book, we need a means of enforcing the terms and conditions decision.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

The Minister of State started unsteadily and concluded unhappily. He started unsteadily with a most unfortunate argument, when dealing with the suggestion that employers and unions were being treated in a different way and that this was objectionable. He argued against that by saying that employers and trades unions could not be regarded as equal, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) pointed out that it was a question not of being born equal but of being treated equally under the law, as happens with men and women, the Minister of State compared ACAS to a lavatory. That seemed a somewhat disrespectful and unfortunate way to refer to an organisation which I thought we were all concerned to support to the fullest possible extent.

The analogy of unfair treatment is an appropriate one with Clause 11 as it stands unamended. The Minister said that the analogy would be fair only if one said that employers were being treated in a different way if they were not the ultimate arbiters in recognition matters. Under the machinery provided in the Bill the employer will not be the ultimate arbiter. Under the Clause 11 procedure, if employers do not obey the requirements of ACAS, it will be possible for the matter to be taken to the Central Arbitration Committee and for that com- mittee, in effect, to treat the union as though it were a recognised union by considering, on its merits, the claim put forward by the union. The Minister of State therefore seeks to make an unreal distinction and creates genuine unequal treatment of employers and unions.

5.0 p.m.

The Minister of State complained, in an air of injured innocence, that it was monstrous for us to say that the action open to the employer under Clauses 2 and 4 amounted to a back-door method. It is a back-door method. The Minister says that Clause 11, appearing as it does under the heading "Trade union recognition", would seem the most appropriate one to deal with questions of trade union recognition, but not the most appropriate for employers. Instead, therefore, of going boldly and openly through the front door marked "Trade union recognition", employers are sent to the back door marked "Conciliation and Advice". It is no use the Minister getting upset at the implication of the phrase "back-door method" when that is precisely what he is compelling the employers to resort to.

Why is he so afraid of allowing the employers to resort to Clause 11? The answer to that was squeezed out of the orange at the end of his speech, when he said that he thought that ACAS should have the right to decide not to consider the matter. That is what we regard as objectionable. We have now had clarification of what previously had only been implied, which is that the Minister hopes that the back-door method will prevent employers getting what they want. In other words, if the amendments were accepted the back-door could be kept firmly bolted and the employer would have the key to the front door, and that is what the Minister objects to. That is why we so strongly favour the Lords amendments.

We think that the employer should, as of right, be able to require the Service to look into these matters. Clauses 2 and 4 are extremely vague about what the Service can and should do in the event that it takes the matter aboard. All that needs to be done is, by conciliation or by other means, for advice to be given. Under Clause 11 there is a requirement for a report and the opportunity for a ballot among the people involved. Crucial importance must be attached to the ballot, and it is doubtful whether the conciliation provisions would enable the Service to hold a ballot. For that reason alone, employers would not be satisfied unless they could go in at the front door. It is quite possible for ACAS, if it thinks the matter is being dealt with adequately under the Bridlington arrangements, to say so. There is ample provision for the inquiry and report in Clauses 11 and 12 in that respect.

Now that we have smoked the Minister out and secured his real reasons we can see that, in so far as they are comprehensible, they are wholly bad. They genuinely discriminate against the employer, not in the sense that every employer is a different animal from the union but in the sense that they are treating employers unfairly and giving them lesser rights than the unions.

Mr. Eric Wigham, of The Times, is not to be regarded as the employers' best

friend, but let me quote what he said in his article on 7th October this year entitled: The case for accepting amendments to the Employment Protection Bill

The article reads: Recognition disputes between unions, which are increasingly troublesome in the white-collar field, can be extremely damaging to employers. These can, of course, ask for help from the ACAS conciliation officers under another section of the Bill, but that hardly justifies excluding them from the procedure designed specifically for recognition issues.

That is our case. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendments from the other place.

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

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 222.

Division No. 372.] AYES [5.06 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Crawshaw, Richard Grant, John (Islington C)
Anderson, Donald Cronin, John Grocott, Bruce
Armstrong, Ernest Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Harper, Joseph
Ashley, Jack Cryer, Bob Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Atkinson, Norman Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Daiyell, Tam Hatton, Frank
Bain, Mrs. Margaret Davidson, Arthur Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Heffer, Eric S.
Bates, Alf Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Henderson, Douglas
Bean, R. E. Deakins, Eric Hooley, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Horam, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Bidwell, Sydney Delargy, Hugh Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Bishop, E. S. Dempsey, James Huckfield, Les
Blenkinsop, Arthur Doig, Peter Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Boardman, H. Dormand, J. D. Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Booth, Albert Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Dunnett, Jack Hunter, Adam
Bradley, Tom Eadie, Alex Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Edge, Geoff Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) English, Michael Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Ennals, David Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Buchan, Norman Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Janner, Greville
Buchanan, Richard Evens, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Jeger, Mrs Lena
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Campbell, Ian Faulds, Andrew John, Brynmor
Canavan, Dennis Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cant, R. B. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Carmichael, Neil Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Carter, Ray Flannery, Martin Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Judd, Frank
Cartwright, John Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Kaufman, Gerald
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Foot, Rt Hon Michael Kelley, Richard
Clemitson, Ivor Ford, Ben Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Forrester, John Lambie, David
Cohen, Stanley Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Lamborn, Harry
Coleman, Donald Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Lamond, James
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen Freeson, Reginald Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Concannon, J. D. Garrett, John (Norwich S) Leadbitter, Ted
Conlan, Bernard Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) George, Bruce Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Corbett, Robin Gilbert, Dr John Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Ginsburg, David Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Gould, Bryan Lipton, Marcus
Crawford, Douglas Gourlay, Harry Litterick, Tom
Loyden, Eddie Padley, Walter Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Luard, Evan Palmer, Arthur Thompson, George
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Park, George Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Parker, John Tierney, Sydney
McCartney, Hugh Parry, Robert Tinn, James
MacCormick, Iain Pendry, Tom Tomlinson, John
McElhone, Frank Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Tomney, Frank
MacFarquhar, Roderick Prescott, John Torney, Tom
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Price, William (Rugby) Tuck, Raphael
Mackenzie, Gregor Radice, Giles Urwin, T. W.
Mackintosh, John P. Reid, George Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Maclennan, Robert Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
McNamara, Kevin Roderick, Caerwyn Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Madden, Max Rodgers, George (Chorley) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Rooker, J. W. Ward, Michael
Marks, Kenneth Roper, John Watkins, David
Marquand, David Rose, Paul B. Watkinson, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Watt, Hamish
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Rowlands, Ted Weetch, Ken
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Sandelson, Neville Weitzman, David
Maynard, Miss Joan Sedgemore, Brian Wellbeloved, James
Meacher, Michael Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Welsh, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mendelson, John Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C) White, James (Pollok)
Mikardo, Ian Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Whitehead, Phillip
Millan, Bruce Sillars, James Whitlock, William
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Skinner, Dennis Wigley, Dafydd
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Small, William Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Molloy, William Snape, Peter Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Moonman, Eric Spearing, Nigel Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Spriggs, Leslie Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Stallard, A. W. Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Newens, Stanley Stonehouse, Rt Hon John Woodall, Alec
Noble, Mike Stott, Roger Woof, Robert
Ogden, Eric Strang, Gavin Wrigglesworth, Ian
O'Halloran, Michael Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. Young, David (Bolton E)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Orbach, Maurice Swain, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Mr. David Stoddart and
Ovenden, John Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) Mr. James Hamilton.
Owen, Dr David Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
NOES
Adley, Robert Crouch, David Grylls, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan Crowder, F. P. Hall, Sir John
Alison, Michael Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Dodsworth, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Arnold, Tom Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Hampson, Dr Keith
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Drayson, Burnaby Hannam, John
Awdry, Daniel Durant, Tony Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Banks, Robert Dykes, Hugh Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Beith, A. J. Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Havers, Sir Michael
Bell, Ronald Elliott, Sir William Hawkins, Paul
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Emery, peter Hayhoe, Barney
Biffen, John Eyre, Reginald Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Biggs-Davison, John Fairbairn, Nicholas Hicks, Robert
Blaker, Peter Fairgrieve, Russell Higgins, Terence L.
Boscawen, Hon Robert Farr, John Hordern, Peter
Bottomley, Peter Fell, Anthony Howell, David (Guildford)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Finsberg, Geoffrey Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Braine, Sir Bernard Fisher, Sir Nigel Hurd, Douglas
Brittan, Leon Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Brotherton, Michael Fookes, Miss Janet Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) James, David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Fox, Marcus Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'dt'd)
Buck, Antony Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Jessel, Toby
Budgen, Nick Freud, Clement Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Bulmer, Esmond Fry, Peter Jopling, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gardiner, George (Reigate) Kershaw, Anthony
Carlisle, Mark Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Kilfedder, James
Carr, Rt Hon Robert Glyn, Dr Alan Kimball, Marcus
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Goodhart, Philip King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Churchill, W. S. Goodlad, Alastair King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Gorst, John Knight, Mrs Jill
Cockcroft, John Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Knox, David
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Lamont, Norman
Cope, John Gray, Hamish Langford-Holt, Sir John
Cordle, John H. Grimond, Rt Hon J. Latham, Michael (Melton)
Cormack, Patrick Grist, Ian Lawrence, Ivan
Lawson, Nigel Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Page, John (Harrow West) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Speed, Keith
Lloyd, Ian Pardoe, John Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Loveridge, John Parkinson, Cecil Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Luce, Richard Pattie, Geoffrey Sproat, Iain
McAdden, Sir Stephen Penhaligon, David Stainton, Keith
McCrindle, Robert Percival, Ian Stanbrook, Ivor
McCusker, H. Pink, R. Bonner Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Macfarlane, Neil Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
MacGregor, John Price, David (Eastleigh) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Raison, Timothy Stokes, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Rathbone, Tim Stradling Thomas, J.
Madel, David Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Tapsell, Peter
Mates, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Mather, Carol Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Tebbit, Norman
Maude, Angus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Temple-Morris, Peter
Mawby, Ray Ridley, Hon Nicholas Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Rifkind, Malcolm Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mayhew, Patrick Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Townsend, Cyril D.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Trotter, Neville
Mills, Peter Ross, William (Londonderry) Tugendhat, Christopher
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Moate, Roger Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) Viggers, Peter
Molyneaux, James Royle, Sir Anthony Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Montgomery, Fergus Sainsbury, Tim Walder, David (Clitheroe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow) St. John-Stevas, Norman Wall, Patrick
Morgan, Geraint Scott, Nicholas Walters, Dennis
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Weatherill, Bernard
Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Wiggin, Jerry
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Shelton, William (Streatham) Winterton, Nicholas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Shepherd, Colin Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mudd, David Shersby, Michael Younger, Hon George
Neave, Airey Silvester, Fred
Nelson, Anthony Sims, Roger TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Neubert, Michael Sinclair, Sir George Mr. Michael Roberts and
Newton, Tony Skeet, T. H. H. Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.
Nott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Forward to