§ Lords Amendment: No. 52, in
§ …"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23rd September 1975; Vol. 364, c. 185.]
§ It is all very well to say that, but one can envisage circumstances in which a union might begin to have its position undermined. Will the Minister tell us, therefore, what could be done when ACAS was considering whether a union should be recognised and action was taken within the place of work which undermined the position as it was being considered by ACAS?
§ Second, the Government's amendment to line 16 of Lords Amendment No. 52 refers to Clause 12—the inquiry and report on a recognition issue—and the words of subsection (2) provide that the service would decline to proceed on a reference under Clause 11 if it felt that the issue was substantially the same as an issue which had been previously raised but that it would go ahead if the circumstances had changed.
§ I ask for clarification here because this matter has been brought to our attention as a result of the amendment moved in the other place. I assume that circumstances would have changed if, for example, membership of the union seeking recognition had substantially 1673 increased or, perhaps, the union might have been recognised in similar firms. In other words, a particular industry might have had this difficulty of union recognition across the country, some plants or factories might have taken the dispute to ACAS, and ACAS might have agreed that the union be recognised. We want to know a little more about that.
§ In the same speech in the other place, the Minister said that ACAS might recommend on an informal basis that special terms should be included in the closed shop agreement. Here again, doing our duty as an Opposition, we seek more information about what the Minister meant in saying that, because there was no clarification at that stage. The debate was fairly brief and the Lords agreed to the amendment without a Division.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Mr. BoothI apologise to the House for not having explained the matter fully. We are asking the House to accept our amendments and the Lords amendments as amended for this reason. The Lords amendments provide that, during the time when an independent union has referred a recognition issue to ACAS under Clause 11 and that issue is still under consideration, or if the union has been recommended for recognition by ACAS and the recommendation is still current, the union shall be deemed to be "specified" for the purposes of a union membership agreement even if the agreement does not so provide. This means that the members of the union which is recognised or is claiming recognition may not be fairly dismissed, without compensation, for refusing to belong to some other union, and may not be penalised by the employer for taking part in the activities of their union on his premises at any appropriate time.
The intention of the amendments is to ensure that a union which genuinely seeks recognition, if only to a limited extent, from an employer and which ACAS considers has a valid claim cannot have its position undercut by the conclusion of a closed shop agreement requiring its members to join some other union or be dismissed. It is conceivable that a union might have a perfectly valid claim to be recognised in respect of certain rights on behalf of its members while not having a right to nego- 1674 tiate for them on any other matter. This is an understandable possibility where unions have a restricted membership because of the specialised skills or interests of its members, or even where it applies on a restricted area basis.
Any developments which would enable union members to be dismissed even while their union was seeking a temporary recognition would prejudice an ACAS investigation of a new recognition claim, and if ACAS had recommended recognition they would amount to a deliberate flouting of that recommendation.
The amendments do not, however, leave the way open to splinter unions with no serious pretensions to recognition to interfere with established collective bargaining arrangements and closed shop agreements. ACAS will quickly be able to dismiss vexatious claims aimed purely at gaining temporary protection against fair dismissal for a union's members, and the protection will cease as soon as ACAS has disposed of the reference.
There is an analogy between this consideration and that which we conducted on the final stages of the Lords amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. We were then considering entitlement to compensation for unfair dismissal where someone is dismissed in certain circumstances. In this Bill we are concerned principally with action against someone short of dismissal in circumstances in which a closed shop will be formed.
Hon. Members will appreciate, however, that there have to be some limitations on the obligations which we place on ACAS to consider a whole series of claims for recognition on a number of different bases, and that is the reason for the additional provision which we now put before the House.
§ Amendment to the Lords amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments made to the Lords amendment: In line 16, leave out 'it' and insert:
'the Service has not declined to proceed on the reference under section 12 above, the union'.
§ In line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. Booth.]
§ Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
1675§ Lords Amendment: No. 53, in page 36, line 29, leave out "religous belief" and insert "conscience".
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe shall consider at the same time the Opposition amendment to the Lords amendment, to leave out "conscience" and insert "deeply held personal conviction", and also the Government motion, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. BrittanI beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, to leave out "conscience" and insert "deeply held personal conviction".
Plainly, this amendment covers matters which have been frequently canvassed in the House, the most recent occasion being two weeks ago. This is a matter of great importance, and we make no apology for returning to the fray, if one may so put it. We do not believe that it is right that an employee who has objections on grounds of "deeply held personal conviction" to joining a trade union should be discriminated against merely because his objections are not on grounds of religious belief.
When this matter was dealt with in another place, the question of the insertion of the word "conscience" was considered and that word was inserted. However, we have suggested instead the insertion of the words "deeply held personal conviction", because considerable objection was taken to the use of the word "conscience". Rather than rehearse the arguments concerning the use of the word "conscience", we thought it better to pick a phrase which seemed to find some merit in the eyes of at least one noble Lord whose experience when he was a Member of this House was wholly on the Labour side. I am referring to Lord Houghton.
Lord Houghton favoured the phrase "deeply held personal conviction" as being a foundation for an entitlement not to be discriminated against if one did not wish to join a trade union. If Labour Members find the word "conscience" objectionable as a criterion, let us at least try the words "deeply held personal conviction". In view of recent events, we believe that it is all the more important that there should be a measure of protection for the individual who does not wish to join a trade union, not because of a reluctance to pay the subscription or be- 1676 cause of some political view of an ephemeral kind but because of a fundamental belief that it is wrong to join an organisation of that kind. Let me hasten to add that no Opposition Member shares that belief, but it is a belief which many of us would fight passionately to allow other people to hold, exercise and enjoy.
Some hon. Members may have recently received a document concerning the situation in the railway industry in which there is to be an imposition on employees to join one of a number of unions unless they have objections on religious grounds. In that case "religious grounds" is circumscribed in an even narrower fashion than in the Bill as it stood unamended in their Lordships' House. The deep feeling of resentment aroused by an attempt to confine objections to trade union membership to religion is manifested in the document which many hon. Members have received from an organisation of people who feel strongly that they should be allowed not to join a trade union, not because they are members of a specific body, but because they have a deep and fundamental belief that membership of a trade union is not appropriate for them.
During the debate two weeks ago, one was pressed for an example of a genuinely deep-held personal belief which was not of a religious foundation. It was suggested that the conscience clause was inappropriate because anyone who had an objection, which was not simply political, to joining a trade union would surely have a religious objection. I gave an example, which I should like to repeat, of exactly the type of objection which would be not on grounds of religion but on grounds either of conscience or of "deeply held personal conviction". The example I gave was of someone who had been a member of the Plymouth Brethren, which is a recognised religious body, opposed to membership of trade unions and other comparable bodies on religious grounds. Let us consider someone who is a lapsed Plymouth Brother. I do not say that in a disrespectful way, because just as it is possible to be a lapsed member of any organisation so is it possible to be a lapsed Plymouth Brother. It is also possible, such is the strength of religious upbringing and training, that even if one no longer shares the basic tenets of the faith in 1677 which one was brought up, one may have a residue of "deeply held personal conviction" traceable in origin to that religious faith but no longer held on a religious basis. It is quite possible for someone who has formerly belonged to a religous organisation which objects to membership of a trade union, to cease to be a member of that organisation and yet to continue to hold, as part of his residue inheritance from that religious faith, a "deeply held personal conviction" that it is wrong to be a member of a trade union. I have given only one example.
The Opposition do not particularly regard the words "deeply held personal conviction" as being any better than "conscience". We merely suggest those words as the alternative formula because they seem to be regarded as preferable by a Member of the other House who has had distinguished connections with the Labour movement—the former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and a holder of a number of other distinguished credentials which I need not repeat.
Where it was regarded as being objectionable for someone with a conscientious objection not to be allowed to absent himself from membership of a trade union, but where Labour supporters believed that the test of a "deeply held personal conviction" was sufficiently cogent, forceful and strong to entitle a person to absent himself, we feel that this latter formula should be acceptable. In that way, we would hope for more tolerance and liberality from the Government.
It may be said that it would be inconsistent to allow a person to absent himself from membership of a trade union on grounds of "deeply held personal conviction" for the purposes of Clause 45 of the Bill but to include in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill the provisions that were retained as a result of the decision of this House two weeks ago. If it is only consistency that worries Labour Members, I cannot imagine for one moment that, with their combined wit and ingenuity and the legislative forces of both Houses of Parliament, they would find it impossible to seek out a solution to the problem.
The issue we must face is one of principle. Should people who genuinely and 1678 sincerely as a matter of "conscience" or "deeply held personal conviction" and who feel it wrong to join a union be compelled to do so? In my view the answer is "No". The only circumstances in which they should be compelled would be if it were impossible to apply the test or if it were a test which could not be followed in practice. I suggest that is not so.
We have had experience of conscientious objectors in time of war. Those cases have included many people whose objections to military service were on grounds not of religion but of conscience. Similarly, in the case of "deeply held personal conviction" courts of the realm have to test people's sincerity and to determine, difficult though it may be, whether they have an honestly held belief.
7.0 p.m.
It is a difficult but not impossible task. I believe that our commitment to freedom of conscience and of deeply held personal belief should be sufficiently great to risk the slight hazard that we may be imposing too difficult a burden upon a tribunal rather than too great a burden on the consciences or deeply held personal beliefs of those who may respect the trade union movement but regard membership of it as contrary to views which are fundamental to their sense of values.
§ Mr. BoothFirst, I compliment the Opposition on finding yet another variation of words which could possibly be used in law to open up the exemption in closed shop agreements beyond the point of religious belief which the Government have consistently maintained in both this Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. I do not deny that this wording comes from an absolutely impeccable source. Therefore, I regret all the more that I find this form of wording no more acceptable to the Government as a statutory exception in the context of closed shop agreements between employers and unions than any of the previous 16 variations which have been considered.
I believe that a serious argument could be made on whether we should be consistent between one Act of Parliament and another on this matter. I do not want to rest on consistency, although there is an argument for it. Nor do I 1679 want to dwell much on having, between exceptions and exclusions in actions short of dismissal, a difference in law which would not be made in cases for consideration under the unfair dismissal provisions.
It would not be right to accept that the effective operation of closed shop agreements, and the rights and obligations of employers, employees and unions involved in them, should be subject to a statutory qualification of those rights and obligations unless that qualification were clear and unambiguous.
The phrase "deeply held personal conviction" is no more immediately intelligible to persons other than the employee claiming to hold such convictions than is "conscience". I have made clear to this House that, important as conscience is, my personal view is that every individual is entitled to say that any precept, formula, belief or tenet, by which he judges whether an action is right or wrong, for him is a matter of conscience. I think that much the same considerations apply to "deeply held personal conviction". Who are we to judge whether it is right for any individual to hold some conviction deeply or not? If, as the formulation of the wording implies, it is a personal matter, it is not universally understood, and I put it to the House that it is not something upon which statutory rights and obligations can appropriately be made to depend.
The use of the phrase as a qualification of statutory rights and obligations regarding membership or non-membership of a union is not comparable to the way in which Labour Party members use the phrase in another connection. The Labour Party member who makes use of the words "deeply held personal conviction" already has loyalties to the party which he will not lightly disregard. This cannot be held to be the same as the reason for somebody not joining a union. I suggest that it is reasonable to expect that somebody who will not join a union is not likely to have any loyalties to that union. If he is not prepared to join a union, he will not have loyalties to the concept of trade unionism generally. What is equally, if not more, important is that we, as a House, are not entitled to assume that such a person feels no sense of loyalty to his fellow employees.
§ Mr. MadelIs there not a practical difficulty here? The hon. Gentleman referred to loyalties to fellow employees. Where a company is moving to a closed shop agreement—I mentioned previously that Vauxhall's is doing that—and people who have not been members of a union have worked there for 15 to 20 years, one cannot say that they are not loyal to their fellow employees if a tolerable situation has existed year after year. The phrase "deeply held personal conviction" would help people who for many years have not been members of a union, and that situation has been understood and tolerated by members of the union in that factory. Is there not a practical difficulty here?
§ Mr. BoothI accept that there is an important practical consideration here. I was saying that we, as a House, are not entitled to assume that. I do not deny that many people who are loyal to their fellow employees and feel themselves to be part of a team would not, on the ground of "deeply held personal conviction", wish to join a trade union. My argument is that in framing legislation on this matter we cannot make this assumption.
However, it is reasonable to assume that a person who refuses to join a trade union will not feel any sense of loyalty to the basis on which the union is formed. That is why we attach great importance to the formulation at which we have arrived, after long and careful discussion, for defining a union membership agreement. We recognise that people who have for many years worked in an amicable way with other employees should, and frequently are, excluded from closed shop agreements by the rest of their fellow workers. Some can be formed in ways which will not require existing employees to join as a condition of future employment within the company. We think these considerations are more effective in this connection.
For that reason, I urge the House to accept the amendment to the Lords amendment and, when the opportunity occurs, to reject the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)I have a deeply held personal conviction that the Opposition are trying to find new words to produce an old result. They might say that my conviction is not 1681 deeply held, but shallow. I should have great difficulty in proving what was meant by that. They might also say that it is not a personal conviction, because it is shared by everyone on this side of the House, and that it is not a conviction anyway, but a belief. That kind of argument would undoubtedly be cast from this House into every tribunal and court where this phrase would have to be interpreted. It is impossible to define. It is an open invitation to litigation. It is also an open invitation to the maverick to stay outside the union, reaping the benefits of what the union has achieved, while not having to contribute to it.
The phrase "deeply held personal conviction", being impossible of proper legal definition, leading only to trouble and intended to interfere as much as possible with the closed shop principle, should be totally rejected.
§ Mr. HayhoeWe return to the issue of the closed shop which has run through many of our discussions over the years, but a new factor has entered into these discussions in the last week or two—namely, that, at a time of rising unemployment, people are now being sacked because, for one reason or another, they are unwilling to conform to the requirements of closed shop union membership agreements. I believe we may see the number of examples of people being sacked rising in the coming months. There have been instances in various parts of the country. Ferry-bridge has been much in the news, but there are also reports from British Leyland, indications in British Rail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) has mentioned the closed shop at Vauxhall's. No doubt other hon. Members will know from constituency experience of other circumstances in which, as a result of pressure from fellow workers and trade unionists, some people are being deprived of their livelihood. They may not be able to find comparable jobs.
I have no sympathy with the free riders who seek the benefits of negotiations undertaken by unions but are too mean to pay the price of a pint of beer or a packet of cigarettes each week for their union dues. I have always made clear that we are not motivated by any desire to change the law to protect the free rider, but we believe that the law being pushed through by the Government does 1682 not have adequate safeguards for individuals with profound, deeply held and sincere convictions.
I do not think the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) added much to our debate. He objected to the wording in the amendment to the Lords amendment and said that it would not stand up very well. If I had to choose between his advice and the words of Lord Houghton in another place I know where my vote would go. Lord Houghton was a union leader for many years and a highly respected figure. In the 1970 to 1974 Parliament he was the Labour Opposition spokesman on industrial affairs, and he speaks with very great authority in these matters. We would be unwise to shrug off lightly the advice he gave in another place and the suggestion he made that wording along the lines of this amendment might provide the solution to the problem which has plagued us for a long time.
I am searching all the time for a formula to get us as close as possible to voluntary 100 per cent. membership of trade unions. When I was active in my own branch of a trade union I and most of my fellow workers abhorred the thought that we might need a measure of compulsion or threat to get someone dismissed in order to persuade him to join our branch. We were prepared to accept that occasionally there would be an awkward cuss, but we thought the evil of compulsion was even greater than difficulties which arise from one or two awkward people not joining their fellow workers in the work of a union branch.
I am prepared to accept union membership agreements providing there are adequate safeguards for the individual. This was the position adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) in the Second Reading debate on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill in the last Parliament. We have held consistently to that view since then. We have tried to find the right formula for adequate safeguards.
There are very few people, apart from hon. Members opposite, who would argue that religious belief has any merit as a ground for exception other than its extreme narrowness and simplicity of ad-administration. Difficulty of administration is used as an argument against any 1683 other form of words which, to the layman, seem to provide adequate safeguards. How tyranny can come because of the ease of administration! Should we not be seeking ways to protect the freedom of the individual?
7.15 p.m.
Conscience would be a better ground for exception than religious belief. We know that conscience has aroused much argument in the past, but we sought, by picking up the words used by Lord Houghton in another place, to find a formulation which could command the support of a substantial number of hon. Members in this House. I find it very sad that there has not been a single voice raised from the Government benches to go outside this very narrow confine of religious belief. Our vote tonight will not be the end of this matter. Public interest will grow as the number of people being sacked increases and the hard cases become known to hon. Members. There will be a growing feeling that something is wrong with the safeguards we have built into this legislation.
The Minister of State did not make much of the argument that the amendment deals only with measures short of dismissal. I acknowledge his good sense in not seeking to base his argument on that narrow point. If we decided these words were appropriate, ways could be found by the magic of procedures in another place, perhaps even before the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill leaves there, to put the matter right. We should not deal with this matter on the grounds of inconsistency of action involved in everything short of dismissal and action which would lead to dismissal, which is the subject of the Bill in another place.
Individuals who have worked in an industry for many years and been accepted as loyal and reasonable members of the work force risk being faced with closed shop agreements which would not have the exceptions referred to by the Minister of State. I know that agreements have taken account of individuals who have worked for a firm for some time, and have not sought to compel them to conform, applying the closed shop agreement only to people coming new into the industry.
I sense a growing intolerance among some unionists, particularly their leaders, 1684 because it is the leaders who are so often involved in these matters when emotions run high. Hon. Members should not think that it is because of a great demand growing from the grass roots. I sense a growing intolerance, and I am sorry that everything that is being done by the Secretary of State and his Ministers is, if anything, serving to accentuate that intolerance. Once more we have the opportunity to vote in favour of a more tolerant and reasonable approach to this matter. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will take that opportunity.
§ Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 266.
1649| Division No. 373.] | AYES | [5.59 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank | Bradley, Tom | Coleman, Donald |
| Anderson, Donald | Bray, Dr Jeremy | Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Concannon, J. D. |
| Ashley, Jack | Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Conlan, Bernard |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Buchan, Norman | Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Buchanan, Richard | Corbett, Robin |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Crawford, Douglas |
| Bates, Alt | Campbell, Ian | Crawshaw, Richard |
| Bean, R. E. | Canavan, Dennis | Cronin, John |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Cant, R. B. | Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Carmichael, Neil | Cryer, Bob |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Carter, Ray | Cunningham, G. (Islington S) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Carter-Jones, Lewis | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Cartwright, John | Daiyell, Tam |
| Boardman, H. | Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Davidson, Arthur |
| Booth, Albert | Clemitson, Ivor | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Cohen, Stanley | Deakins, Eric |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Lamborn, Harry | Rose, Paul B. |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Lamond, James | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Dempsey, James | Leadbitter, Ted | Sandelson, Neville |
| Doig, Peter | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Lever, Rt Hon Harold | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C) |
| Edge, Geoff | Litterick, Tom | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
| English, Michael | Loyden, Eddie | Sillars, James |
| Ennals, David | Luard, Evan | Skinner, Dennis |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Small, William |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | McCartney, Hugh | Snape, Peter |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | MacCormick, Iain | Spearing, Nigel |
| Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) | McElhone, Frank | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Faulds, Andrew | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Stallard, A. W. |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Mackenzie, Gregor | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
| Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Mackintosh, John P. | Stoddart, David |
| Flannery, Martin | Maclennan, Robert | Stonehouse, Rt Hon John |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Stott, Roger |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McNamara, Kevin | Strang, Gavin |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Madden, Max | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. |
| Ford, Ben | Magee, Bryan | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Forrester, John | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Swain, Thomas |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Marks, Kenneth | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Freeson, Reginald | Marquand, David | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Garrett), W. E. (Wallsend) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| George, Bruce | Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Thompson, George |
| Gilbert, Dr John | Maynard, Miss Joan | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Ginsburg, David | Meacher, Michael | Tierney, Sydney |
| Gould, Bryan | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Tinn, James |
| Gourlay, Harry | Mendelson, John | Tomlinson, John |
| Grant, John (Islington C) | Mikardo, Ian | Tomney, Frank |
| Grocott, Bruce | Millan, Bruce | Torney, Tom |
| Harper, Joseph | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Tuck, Raphael |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Molloy, William | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Hatton, Frank | Moonman, Eric | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Hayman, Mrs. Helene | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Ward, Michael |
| Henderson, Douglas | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Watkins, David |
| Hooley, Frank | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Watkinson, John |
| Horam, John | Newens. Stanley | Watt, Hamish |
| Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) | Noble, Mike | Weetch, Ken |
| Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Ogden, Eric | Weitzman, David |
| Huckfield, Les | O'Halloran, Michael | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Welsh, Andrew |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Orbach, Maurice | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | White, James (Pollok) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Ovenden, John | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Hunter, Adam | Owen, Dr David | Whitlock, William |
| Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Padley, Walter | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Palmer, Arthur | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Park, George | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Parker, John | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Janner, Greville | Parry, Robert | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Pendry, Tom | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Jeger, Mrs Lena | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Prescott, John | Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) |
| Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) | Price, William (Rugby) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| John, Brynmor | Radice, Giles | Woodall, Alec |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Reid, George | Woof, Robert |
| Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Robertson, John (Paisley) | |
| Judd, Frank | Roderick, Caerwyn | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Kaufman, Gerald | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Mr. J. D. Dormand and |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Rooker, J. W. | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Lambie, David | Roper, John | |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Bell, Ronald | Brocklebank-Fowler, C. |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Biffen, John | Brotherton, Michael |
| Alison, Michael | Biggs-Davlson, John | Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Blaker, Peter | Buchanan-Smith, Alick |
| Arnold, Tom | Boscawen, Hon Robert | Buck, Antony |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Bottomley, Peter | Budgen, Nick |
| Awdry, Daniel | Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Banks, Robert | Braine, Sir Bernard | Butler, Adam (Bosworth) |
| Beith, A. J. | Brittan, Leon | Carlisle, Mark |
| Carr, Rt Hon Robert | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Raison, Timothy |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Chennon, Paul | James, David | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Jessel, Toby | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Cockcroft, John | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Jopling, Michael | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Cops, John | Kershaw, Anthony | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kilfedder, James | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Crouch, David | Kimball, Marcus | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Crowder, F. P. | King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Knox, David | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lamont, Norman | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lawrence, Ivan | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Durant, Tony | Lawson, Nigel | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lloyd, Ian | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Elliott, Sir William | Loveridge, John | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Emery, Peter | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Eyre, Reginald | McCrindle, Robert | Shepherd, Colin |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | McCusker, H. | Shersby, Michael |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Macfarlane, Neil | Silvester, Fred |
| Farr, John | MacGregor, John | Sims, Roger |
| Fell, Anthony | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Madel, David | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Mates, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mather, Carol | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Maude, Angus | Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester) |
| Fox, Marcus | Mawby, Ray | Sproat, Iain |
| Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stainton, Keith |
| Freud, Clement | Mayhew, Patrick | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Fry, Peter | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Mills, Peter | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke) | Stokes, John |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Moate, Roger | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Goodhart, Philip | Molyneaux, James | Tapsell, Peter |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Montgomery, Fergus | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Gorst, John | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Morgan, Geraint | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Gray, Hamish | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| Grist, Ian | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Grylls, Michael | Mudd, David | Trotter, Neville |
| Hall, Sir John | Neave, Airey | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Nelson, Anthony | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Neubert, Michael | Viggers, Peter |
| Hannam, John | Newton, Tony | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Harrison, Col Sir Herwood (Eye) | Nott, John | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Wall, Patrick |
| Havers, Sir Michael | Page, John (Harrow West) | Walters, Dennis |
| Hawkins, Paul | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Pardoe, John | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Heath, Rt Hon Edward | Parkinson, Cecil | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Hicks, Robert | Pattie, Geoffrey | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Higgins, Terence L. | Penhaligon, David | Younger, Hon George |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Percival, Ian | |
| Hordern, Peter | Pink, R. Bonner | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch | Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and |
| Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Mr. Richard Luce. |
| Hurd, Douglas |
§ [For Division List 374 see col 1771.]
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 212.
§ [For Division List 375 see col. 1775.]
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.