HC Deb 26 July 1976 vol 916 cc176-96

Amendment made: No. 243, in page 27, line 35, leave out 'summarise' and insert 'record'.—[Mr. Booth.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Booth.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior

I begin by making a protest once more about the imposition of the guillotine, which is restricting the amount of time available for debate. Only three-quarters of an hour is left to discuss this important Bill and decide whether we should send it to another place.

On Third Reading we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. How will the Bill help the country? How will it improve our economic performance? Will it improve our costs, our trade, our delivery dates and, hence, our exports? How will others overseas look at the effect of the Bill? Does anyone think that people overseas will look at the Bill and what it is doing and shiver in their shoes because Britain is about to become that much more competitive?

There are few of us in the House—and the Bill has only a bare majority—or outside who believe that the Bill will help in any way in solving our problems There must be many Labour Members who voted for the Government's amendments and who will vote for Third Reading with a very heavy heart. We are bringing forward the Bill at a time when in Australia and elsewhere, the trend is to get rid of dock labour schemes and replace them with an employer-employee situation within a framework of good employment legislation— [Interruption]—yet we are busy extending our Dock Labour Scheme.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) may be interested to know that the Australians have agreed to scrap the equivalent of our National Dock Labour Board. All parties in the political spectrum there are agreed upon this. They are doing so because it is realised that the number of dockers has to be reduced. The system that we are furthering does not allow the necessary flexibility. The Australians know this, and they know too that they cannot afford the inbuilt costs which the National Dock Labour Board scheme system imposes. Any extension of such a scheme in this country must be a retrograde step.

We know that extra jobs will not be provided. Any idea that that would be the case has been shot out of the window. It was suggested that, in addition to extra jobs being provided, the dock workers' jobs would be protected. There will not be any extra jobs. It is a question of how quickly the number of jobs in the dock industry will be run down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who has taken such an active part in all stages of the Bill, said earlier today, this is a game of musical chairs with one chair missing at each turn of the game.

What will the Bill do for employment? Labour Members ought to be interested in this. They keep on about the unemployment figures, almost as if they did not bear responsibility for them. They have a heavy responsibility for them. I am fed up with hearing people like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) telling us that we do not understand the working man and are not interested in him at a time when there are 1½ million unemployed. I want to see less unemployment from this Labour Government.

The Bill puts at risk employment in all the small ports. We have had numerous examples of this. That is one thing that the Bill does. The next thing is that it puts at risk employment in warehouses, cold stores and container depots throughout the country. The reason for that is simply this. If a number of dockers eventually find their way into those places, with their restrictive practices and working record the costs will rise and a number of those places will close down. In warehousing, developments are already taking place in North-West Europe that will take the place of developments over here. The Bill will therefore affect the employment of people in building warehouses in Britain.

One of the factors in this is that British Rail ports, roll-on/roll-off ports, have been excluded from the effects of the Bill. They are one of the few places where there will be an advantage, because goods which would have been brought here in bulk will merely be brought to North-West Europe, broken down and shipped across in roll-on/roll-off transport. That is another way in which employment in this country will suffer.

Then there is all the risk in the fact that new building will not take place. Already one can pick up almost any property advertisement paper and see that the development of warehousing and the sale or renting of warehouses in the five-mile corridor has practically come to an end.

Mr. MacCormick

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that possibly what we ought to he trying to do is to abolish the whole concept of dock workers and move on to something else which perhaps dock workers could do?

Mr. Prior

There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I shall come to that point a little later.

We are told by a number of Labour Members "But it is the conditions of work that we must get right. The conditions of work in the non-scheme ports and some of the small wharves are not comparable with those in the scheme ports." The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) shot that one down. He merely said that his constituents would prefer to have a job than to have the best conditions in the world but no job to carry out in those conditions.

What does the Bill do to hold down prices? What does it do to help the Government's policy of price restraint? All the evidence that has been displayed by hon. Members in all parts of the House shows quite clearly that the only effect of the Bill can be to move prices upwards. Whether it be in regard to the movement of goods in and out of a cold store or in the container depots or the warehouses, we all know that the long-term effect of the Bill will be to raise prices. Yet the Government, who all the time are preaching the need to keep down prices, are at the same time voting for a Bill of this nature. When we talk about hypocrisy in this House, we have only to look at the Government Front Bench to see it in action.

We all know that the possible introduction of the Bill has caused a great deal of industrial unrest. Some of my hon. Friends have been to the Dagenham cold store and have talked, as most of us have done, to shop stewards of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other unions. We all know that the effect of the Bill has been to disturb industrial relations. It is the cynicism of a Government who can specifically exclude the National Freight Corporation and British Rail from the operation of the Bill that makes everyone know that this is simply a Bill which has been put through for party-political purposes and is not in the interests of the nation.

There is no case for extension. No estimate of the additional jobs has been given to us at any stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State has refused from start to finish to say how many extra jobs for dockers he expects to be provided as a result of the Bill. He has said that he does not know. If he looks at the report of the Chairman of the Port of London Authority, he will see that that report alone will give him a very good guide as to how many extra jobs are likely to be provided. The answer, of course, is that there are no extra jobs available.

This is a thoroughly bad Bill, and when I see the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) sitting in her place I venture to say that it is not even very popular in her constituency, which has a lot of dockers. In fact, they showed just what they thought of the Bill at the recent by-election.

The right way to tackle this problem would have been to follow the advice of the Opposition and freeze the register with the names of those already on the National Dock Labour Board's register. Then the scheme could have been gradually run down and replaced by contracts of employment entered into freely between employers and dockers. This would have been a way of dealing successfully with this old emotional problem. Had the Government thought about it seriously they would have realised this, and Labour Members would be doing a great service to the nation if they rejected the Bill tonight.

However, if the Bill goes on the statute book it will give wide enabling powers to the Secretary of State. These are not powers which I would ever recommend any Conservative Secretary of State using. For this reason, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Bill.

10.27 p.m.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)

It will be a difficult task for me to follow my predecessor, Mr. Hugh Delargy, who was one of the most respected Members of this House. He carried out his heavy duties as Chairman of the Selection Committee conscientiously and without fear or favour, and we all regret his tragic death. He served his constituency well for 26 years and was known for his kindness, thoughtfulness and sympathetic ear. He was always willing to help those who came to him with problems; and he never sought publicity for the actions he took on their behalf. He will be warmly remembered by his many friends in the constituency of Thurrock, which I now have the honour to represent.

My constituency makes a vital contribution to the nation's wealth through many and varied industries such as paper mills, cement works, power stations, oil refineries, margarine factories and others, including the great port of Tilbury. Thurrock now faces rising unemployment, and there are great fears and anxieties about this problem. For that reason I welcome the Bill, which aims to ensure the stability and permanence of employment for dockers.

The dockers, like many other working-class groups, are much maligned by the Opposition and the Press. They are hardworking and honest, yet they are subjected to continual attack and abuse. The Port of London Authority loses virtually nothing through pilfering year after year. Nor are dockers out to grab other people's jobs, although this is the picture which is often painted of them. Instead, they are legitimately concerned about the stability and permanence of their own employment.

Over the last few years dockers have coped well with the technological changes in the industry and the changes in the development of world trade patterns. Their work force has been reduced from 60,000 in 1966 to 32,000 in 1975, and in many cases that reduction has been accepted without industrial unrest or dispute.

The purpose of the Bill is not to allow dockers to grab jobs at the expense of other workers—that was never its intention. In fact, it is to confirm dock work and to confirm the jobs of those engaged in work which is classified as dock work.

During the few months in which the Bill has been discussed in the House of Commons—and it has been discussed thoroughly and extensively—it has been under continual attack from the Opposition, from the media and from organisations which are interested in preserving the existence of docks outside the scheme where casual labour and substandard conditions of employment may prevail. That is the reason for their attack on the Bill.

The Bill is designed firmly to establish the National Dock Labour Board and thus to guard against casual working. It is to ensure that dock workers have satisfactory conditions of work. The board, far from being rigid as envisaged by the Opposition, will allow for the mobility of labour between ports and for the necessary flexibility to meet unforeseen changes in the patterns of trade. The board is envied by other workers who would very much like to end casual employment in their own work. The ship repairers, for example, at Tilbury would very much like to be in the position of the dockers, and it is hoped that soon they will be.

The Bill will not solve all the dockers' problems, because they are many and difficult, but it will allow for the problems to be tackled in the right way. It will allow the workers a say in their own conditions of work and it will continue the practice of joint regulation of employment in the docks, and that is what is important. For the Bill to have have real meaning for the dock workers, however, and for there to be a guarantee of security of employment, more will need to be done. There must be a direction of work to the old-established and traditional ports like Tilbury in order to ensure that good employment is available there.

The Bill has been thoroughly misrepresented by the Opposition, particularly by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). But his opposition to it has been uncertain. He was unable to make up his mind earlier whether to claim that the Bill was better because of the changes put in by his party in Committee or whether to maintain that the Bill would lead to dockers taking over other people's jobs and bring about all the other ills which he has ascribed to it. In that respect, the trumpet note from the Opposition has been uncertain today.

Opposition to the Bill outside the House has been much more definite. There was a last-ditch stand over the weekend by the CBI, which reiterated its old claims that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold on goods leaving and entering the country, making it seem that dockers, apart from menacing other workers, were now to menace and blackmail the whole country—an absurd idea.

Those opponents to the Bill claim that it will increase port charges. They say that the five-mile corridor is far too great and that half a mile would be sufficient. But these claims only go to show their misunderstanding of the nature of dock work. There is far too little work outside the scheme ports to make any real difference to the nation's import bill. The half-mile corridor would be quite useless because it would need continually to be extended in order to cover the cargo-handling areas.

As for the unrest which the CBI claims will follow from enactment of the Bill, the aim is to regulate employment and to provide the best possible means of dealing with industrial unrest. No longer will there be the conflict favoured by the Opposition. Instead, there will be the continuing co-operation of employer and dock worker to ensure that all the problems faced by the industry are properly and carefully dealt with.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. It is noteworthy that she launched herself into the matter under debate, which is hardly uncontroversial, but her contribution was none the less appreciated for that.

The Bill is irrelevant to the economic problems of the nation. It offers a stranglehold on many of the country's food supplies, and that is a potential danger. It is inflationary in that it proposes to increase the cost of distribution by £6 a ton. It will adversely affect our overseas trade. It will doubtless lead to industrial unrest, whatever might be said by Labour Members, because of the inevitability of disputes, and it will have an adverse effect upon investment in ports and related operations.

Faced with this possible list of difficulties, it amazes me that the Government seek to continue to proceed with the Bill. It is not right that we should be discussing the preservation of the docker for all time in relation to the economic needs of the country. The problems of the ports have been shown to be due to the difficulties of organising dock labour, of equipping the ports and of being able to plan the effective use of the ports. But it is no substitute to say that all ports must be maintained in the same situation as they were before, that work should be directed there and that there should be no change at all. This Government favour progress as long as it does not bring about change.

We cannot believe that, with 1.4 million unemployed, the Bill will make any contribution to the solution of our economic difficulties. We know that the Bill has been brought about by what we might term sleight of Foot, patched up with Mr. Jack Jones late at night. The only good argument that I have heard for metrication is that it will ultimately lead to the abolition of the foot.

This is a bad Bill, presented in a ham-fisted way and brought under the guillotine, thereby stifling debate on it, and the sooner we are rid of it the better.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Loyden

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a carefully-thought-out and well-delivered speech. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from her in future on the docks and, of course, other industries.

Tonight we have seen the consistent argument presented by the Opposition about the economic effects of the Bill. In the disclosure of their intentions, it has become apparent that the Opposition wish the industry to return to casualisation.

I do not suggest that the Bill presents the panacea to all the problems of the docks industry. Those who have worked in the industry are aware that the Docks Act 1947 and the first Regulations under it brought some degree of humanity and dignity into the lives of dock workers. That situation was brought about not by the consent of the employers but by the struggle of the dock workers over many decades. The 1947 Act ended the inhuman casual work nature of the industry and brought into effect the changes that dockers had rightly and justifiably fought for over the years. Since that time there has been report after report about the future of the docks industry.

Dock workers have suffered a reduction of over 50 per cent. in job opportunities. The Opposition rightly make the point that a similar situation obtains among miners, railway workers and others. But the point they fail to make is that, no matter what reduction in job opportunities has taken place in those industries, miners still dig coal and railway workers still drive the trains and man the railways.

What has happened in the docks industry? By an act of deliberate policy, the employers have moved away from dockland work which has traditionally been performed by dock workers. There has not been a reduction in work to create the loss of 50 per cent. of employment opportunities. That situation was brought about by the employers moving work away from the docks industry. Therefore, the dock workers recognised that they would have to do something about it.

In 1972 the Conservative Government had an opportunity of dealing with this problem through what they would call the peaceful role. The Jones-Aldington study set out the alternatives for dealing with the problem of the stuffing and stripping of containers which was taking place in the highways and byways, in prisons and in other places.

The employers are concerned only with undercutting the dock worker. They want to be relieved of the responsibility of continuing to pay a levy to the NDLB which has been the basis on which the industry has been built. That is why they want to get away from the highly-organised workers in dockland to areas of high exploitation. That is what caused the reduction in the number of job opportunities in the docks.

The Opposition failed in 1972 to grasp the opportunity to accommodate the wishes of the T & GWU and other unions in the industry to find a way of dealing with these problems. They rejected that approach out of hand and made it necessary to bring in legislation to give effect to the Jones-Aldington Report.

That report was not designed by, or in the interests of, the Transport and General Workers' Union. It was prepared by people held in great respect throughout the industry. The Bill is essential because the report was not implemented. We need this measure if we are to have continuity of employment in the industry and if we are to avoid a return to casualisation.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on a very well-delivered maiden speech. I visited her constituency during the recent by-election campaign and I suggest to her that large numbers of the people who habitually support the Labour Party would not agree with her remarks tonight. This was shown in the election result. However, I do not wish to be controversial about her maiden speech and I wish that I could have made such a good first speech myself.

I regard the Bill as a tragedy, taking us in precisely the wrong direction. I was not aware that the stuffing and stripping of containers was taking place in Parkhurst and Albany. I am interested in that piece of information from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).

I do not think that we have to go back to casualisation to do something different in the docks. Surely we all agree that we need to increase our exports. The Government have said that they are trying to get the economic position right by instituting an export drive. Does the Bill help that objective? I suggest that it does not. Our exports need to be dealt with quickly and efficiently, which means increased productivity and no damaging disputes such as those we have seen in the past. I fear that the Bill will achieve the opposite results.

There are many efficient scheme ports. Southampton, which I visited recently, is one, but why should firms in the five-mile corridor have to make yet more returns and fill in yet more forms for a local or national docks board? We are not sure at which level this work will be done, but I hope the Minister realises that it should be done at a local level.

Do we not have enough bureaucracy? Should we not be trying to reduce the number of administrators who rule our lives? Is it necessary to have elaborate visitations round our coast to decide whether ports like Cowes, in my constituency, or Shoreham should be included, when it should be obvious to the most dim-witted of persons that they should not? For goodness sake, leave alone the ports which are doing a good job.

There will undoubtedly be disputes. I have no doubt that there will be inter-union disputes, just at a time when in most parts of the country there are signs of industrial peace and co-operation. We all know of the fears of unions members in our constituencies. I have received a petition signed by about 30 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union working in the port of Newport in the Isle of Wight. If many of the small ports are to be included, costs will inevitably rise because part-time workers will be dispensed with and registered dockers will have to be employed in their place. This is very worrying in a constituency like mine, with a cost of living some 5 per cent. above the national average, and possibly higher, and with a high level of unemployment, which went up to about 9 per cent. last Christmas. The latter figure is down at the moment but it will undoubtedly rise in the autumn.

It is still to be hoped that the other place will achieve what we who served on the Committee failed to pull off. Perhaps even the Government will relent at this late hour. In the meantime, all we can do is to show with our votes how much we disapprove of this ill-considered Bill.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

The Bill has found few friends today, and it is perhaps significant that throughout the Committee stage Members on the Government side tended to be below the Gangway rather than behind the Government Front Bench.

I wish to be brief, but may I refer to at least one friend that the Bill has found today? I refer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), whom I congratulate on her maiden speech, which was delivered with great confidence and charm.

The hon. Lady may well have created a precedent, because I know of no other occasion when a maiden speech has been made during a 45-minute debate under an allocation-of-time guillotine, but perhaps it was appropriate because the last occasion when the hon. Lady's predecessor, the late Hugh Delargy, spoke in the House was on the Second Reading of this Bill, and he was a well-respected and well-liked Member of the House. I am sure that all parts of the House were pleased with the tribute that the hon. Lady paid to him.

This piece of legislation, however, is damaging and divisive. It is an unnecessary and unwanted Bill. It increases costs, reduces efficiency and eliminates job opportunities, and many Labour Members know how staggeringly irrelevent its provisions are to the needs of our time. What possible relevance has the Bill to the 1.46 million people unemployed or to the other 200,000 school-leavers who are devoid of a job? How cynically they must look upon Government Ministers who spend their time in promoting this measure.

Yet we have had no indication of Labour votes against this legislation or of abstentions from the Labour Benches tonight. We may well ask "Where have all the moderates gone?" and get the answer "Lobby fodder every one." Perhaps the passage of the Bill will enhance the reputation of the Government Whips—and, believe me, they need to have their reputations enhanced—but certainly it will diminish the standing of those who are the self-styled social democrats on the Government Benches.

If, as I fear, this nasty Bill is given a Third Reading, a particular responsi- bility will rest upon their Lordships in another place. Conservatives, Liberals, cross-bench peers and perhaps, in Committee, some Labour peers with the guts to stand up for what they believe in will look askance at the Bill's uneven provisions and make major amendments to it. We in this House will then have a second chance to look at this legislation.

Much can happen in three months. I wish no personal harm or injury to any hon. Member, but the Government have had their share of the luck in by-elections and perhaps their luck will run out in the next three months. Perhaps even the Manifesto Group will find its political nerve. Who knows what wonders might not happen in that time?

Let us be clear tonight as the guillotine falls, leaving so much of this measure undebated, that the national interest demands that the Bill should not become law. We shall vote against it tonight, and if it manages to scrape through we shall return to the attack on this nasty measure in the autumn.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Booth

I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on her maiden speech. We knew before she came how welcome her vote would be: we now know how welcome her voice is as well.

At a time when there is much controversial legislation before the House, the Opposition have kept their most vicious attacks for this Bill. Some of their criticisms are notable. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was the first to describe it as a squalid deal betwen my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Jack Jones. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was the first to say that the Bill would give the dockers a stranglehold over the whole community through the control of food supplies. That has been reiterated many times since. The Bill has been criticised as increasing costs, preventing flexible use of labour, making for poorer industrial relations and involving unnecessary bureaucratic control.

Yet with all that criticism by the Opposition, during all our long debates in Committee, there has been a void. What has been missing is any alternative strategy from the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Throw it out."] They have criticised the existing Dock Labour Scheme and they have criticised the Bill's provisions. Having done so, surely they must have an alternative. They cannot believe in what we propose, and they cannot believe in the existing scheme, yet their most constructive suggestion is that we should throw it out.

Against the background of the history of the troubles in the docks and the failure to deal with the situation by appropriate and up-to-date legislation, nothing could be more thoroughly irresponsible than to say that the situation can be met by the phrase "Throw it out".

Even at this late stage we must face the fact that the existing scheme has remained unchanged since its introduction and that at each port to which it applies there are long and complex legal definitions, which might be of interest to students of our history but bear no relationship to the requirements of a modern docks industry. For example, at the port of Ardrossan the existing scheme applies to the work of cargo handling, except for the work of persons directly engaged in horse or capstan movement. At the port of Fleetwood the scheme does not apply to scrubbing and catching when performed by boys. One could go through a whole list of these variations and challenge anyone with a knowledge of the dock work industry to say that they are relevant to the needs of a modern industry.

A whole series of recommendations by impartial inquiries have told this House the same thing, yet on Second Reading the suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench was that there should be another inquiry. The Conservative Front Bench ignored the Bristow inquiry in 1970 and in 1972, after the third national dock strike following the Industrial Relations Act, decided to ignore the advice of the National Ports Council in relation to non-scheme ports. The Conservative Front Bench was prepared to leave until 1974 the Jones-Aldington Report, which also recommended that the Government should take action to deal with non-scheme ports. Still the Conservatives have not come forward with an alternative strategy.

When I quoted in the timetable debate the recommendation of the Jones-Aldington Report, I was challenged by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby, who said that it did not recommend legislation—

Mr. Brittan

It was not the Jones-Aldington Report I challenged; it was the ACAS Report. That is a very different report, and I made a very proper challenge.

Mr. Booth

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He is right; it was the ACAS Report. I shall quote it in full so that he can never again say that it did not contain recommendations for legislation.

The hon. Gentleman said on 20th July: there is nothing in the report that says that the legislation is desirable or necessary".—[Official Report, 20th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1667.] The ACAS Report stated: One of the central issues in this and previous inquiries has been the legal definition of dock work. It seems clear to us that a definition set up in the 1940s has given rise to a line of interpretation which has become established by precedent and has thus been passed down into the 1970s, when the economic, technological and industrial relations environment has changed dramatically. It is not for us to say how the legislation should be changed—that is a matter for Government. But it does seem to us that it should be changed as soon as possible. Previous recommendations for legal reform have been frustrated, and it is understandable that those whose jobs are at stake should be impatient to see real action, The recommendation was that Government, having brought forward its proposals"— that is what we are talking about tonight, the Government's proposals which were referred to by that ACAS report— for legislation relating to registered dock-work, should make every effort to give these proposals legal effect within the minimum period possible. That is what we are seeking to do tonight.

The Bill provides orderly and sensible procedures for determining the proper application of the scheme in the light of modern conditions. What we have sought to do in the Bill, after the fullest consultation and with the support of the TUC, is to ensure that the legislation relating to the employment of dock workers is brought up to date and can remain relevant in the swifty-changing conditions in the industry. I believe that the Bill is the best way of achieving those aims, and in that spirit I commend it to the House.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. David Price

I protest very strongly about the guillotine, because I would have responded to the Secretary of State had I been able to put proposals to him for local dock labour boards as an alternative to the scheme he envisages.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that this is an enabling Bill. Therefore, we must consider how it will be implemented in practice. I believe that the Minister may have some sympathy for local schemes with a great deal of local variation. That is the system

that I would prefer. That is precisely what the Australians are doing, following an inquiry set up by the previous Labour Government in Australia. Bearing in mind the turbulent history of the waterfront in Australia, we can learn something from what the Australians have decided.

This also coincides with the depth of feeling among people across the political spectrum who want to get our industrial relations much more—

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 299.

Division No. 280.] AYES [11.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Allaun, Frank Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Anderson, Donald Crawshaw, Richard George, Bruce
Archer, Peter Cronin, John Gilbert, Dr John
Armstrong, Ernest Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Ginsburg, David
Ashley, Jack Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Golding, John
Ashton, Joe Cryer, Bob Gould, Bryan
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Gourlay, Harry
Atkinson, Norman Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Graham, Ted
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dalyell, Tam Grant, George (Morpeth)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Davidson, Arthur Grant, John (Islington C)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Grocott, Bruce
Bates, Alf Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Bean, R. E. Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hardy, Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Deakins, Eric Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Bidwell, Sydney Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bishop, E. S. deFreitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Hatton, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Hayman, Mrs Helene
Boardman, H. Dempsey, James Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Doig, Peter Heffer, Eric S.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Dormand, J. D. Hooley, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Douglas-Mann, Bruce Horam, John
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Duffy, A. E. P. Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Bradley, Tom Dunn, James A. Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Dunnett, Jack Huckfield, Les
Broughton, Sir Alfred Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Eadie, Alex Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Edge, Geoff Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Buchan, Norman Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Hunter, Adam
Buchanan, Richard Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) English, Michael Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Ennals, David Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Campbell, Ian Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Janner, Greville
Canavan, Dennis Evans, John (Newton) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Cant, R. B. Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Jeger, Mrs Lena
Carmichael, Neil Faulds, Andrew Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Carter, Ray Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Cartwright, John Fitch, Alan (Wigan) John, Brynmor
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Johnson, James (HullWest)
Clemitson, Ivor Flannery, Martin Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Cohen, Stanley Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Coleman, Donald Foot, Rt Hon Michael Judd, Frank
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Ford, Ben Kaufman, Gerald
Concannon, J. D. Forrester, John Kelley, Richard
Conlan, Bernard Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Kerr, Russell
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Corbett, Robin Freeson, Reginald Kinnock, Neil
Lambie, David Ogden, Eric Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Lamborn, Harry O'Halloran, Michael Stoddart, David
Lamond, James Orbach, Maurice Stott, Roger
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Strang, Gavin
Leadbitter, Ted 0venden, John Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.
Lee, John Owen, Dr David Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Padley, Walter Swain, Thomas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Palmer, Arthur Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lipton, Marcus Park, George Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Litterick, Tom Parker, John Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Lomas, Kenneth Parry, Robert Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Loyden, Eddie Pavitt, Laurie Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Luard, Evan Peart, Rt Hon Fred Tierney, Sydney
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Pendry, Tom Tinn, James
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Perry, Ernest Tomlinson, John
McCartney, Hugh Phipps, Dr Colin Tomney, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Torney, Tom
MacFarquhar, Roderick Prescott, John Tuck, Raphael
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Price, C. (Lewisham W) Urwin, T. W.
MacKenzie, Gregor Price, William (Rugby) Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.
Mackintosh, John P. Radice, Giles Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Maclennan, Robert Richardson, Miss Jo Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Madden, Max Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Magee, Bryan Robinson, Geoffrey Ward, Michael
Mahon, Simon Roderick, Caerwyn Watkins, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Rodgers, George (Chor'ey) Watkinson, John
Marks, Kenneth Rodgers, William (Stockton) Weetch, Ken
Marquand, David Rooker, J. W. Weitzman, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Roper, John Wellbeloved, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Rose, Paul B. White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) White, James (Pollok)
Maynard, Miss Joan Sandelson, Neville Whitehead, Phillip
Meacher, Michael Sedgemore, Brian Whitlock, William
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Selby, Harry Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mendelson, John Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mikardo, Ian Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Millan, Bruce Shore, Rt Hon Peter Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C) Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Moonman, Eric Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Sillars, James Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Silverman, Julius Woodall, Alec
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Skinner, Dennis Woof, Robert
Moyle, Roland Small, William Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Young, David (Bolton E)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Snape, Peter
Newens, Stanley Spearing, Nigel TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Noble, Mike Spriggs, Leslie Mr. Joseph Harper and
Oakes, Gordon Stallard, A. W. Mr. James Hamilton.
Adley, Robert Bulmer, Esmond Dykes, Hugh
Aitken, Jonathan Burden, F. A. Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Alison, Michael Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arnold, Tom Carlisle, Mark Elliott, Sir William
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Carson, John Emery, Peter
Awdry, Daniel Chalker, Mrs Lynda Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Channon, Paul Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Baker, Kenneth Churchill, W. S. Eyre, Reginald
Banks, Robert Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Beith, A. J. Clark, William (Croydon S) Fairgrieve, Russell
Bell, Ronald Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Farr, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Clegg, Walter Fell, Anthony
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Cockcroft, John Finsberg, Geoffrey
Benyon, W. Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Berry, Hon Anthony Cope, John Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bitten, John Cordle, John H. Forman, Nigel
Biggs-Davison, John Cormack, Patrick Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Blaker, Peter Corrie, John Fox, Marcus
Body, Richard Costain, A. P. Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Freud, Clement
Bottomley, Peter Crawford, Douglas Fry, Peter
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Critchley, Julian Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Crouch, David Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bradford, Rev Robert Crowder, F. P. Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Brittan, Leon Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Brotherton, Michael Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Dodsworth, Geoffrey Glyn, Dr Alan
Bryan, Sir Paul Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Drayson, Burnaby Goodhart, Philip
Buck, Antony du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Goodhew, Victor
Budgen, Nick Durant, Tony Goodlad, Alastair
Gorst, John Macfarlane, Neil Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) MacGregor, John Royle, Sir Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Sainsbury, Tim
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gray, Hamish McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Scott, Nicholas
Griffiths, Eldon Model, David Scott-Hopkins, James
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Grist, Ian Marten, Neil Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Grylls, Michael Mates, Michael Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hall, Sir John Mather, Carol Shepherd, Colin
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maude, Angus Shersby, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maudiling, Rt Hon Reginald Silvester, Fred
Hampson, Dr Keith Mawby, Ray Sims, Roger
Hannam, John Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Sinclair, Sir George
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Mayhew, Patrick Skeet, T. H. H.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Meyer, Sir Anthony Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Hastings, Stephen Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Havers, Sir Michael Mills, Peter Speed, Keith
Hawkins, Paul Miscampbell, Norman Spence, John
Hayhoe, Barney Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Moate, Roger Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Henderson, Douglas Molyneaux, James Sproat, Iain
Heseltine, Michael Monro, Hector Stainton, Keith
Hicks, Robert Montgomery, Fergus Stanbrook, Ivor
Higgins, Terence L. Moore, John (Croydon C) Stanley, John
Holland, Philip More, Jasper (Ludlow) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hooson, Emlyn Morgan, Geraint Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hordern, Peter Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Howell, David (Guildford) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Stokes, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Stradling, Thomas J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Mudd, David Tapsell, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral) Neave, Airey Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hunt, John (Bromley) Nelson, Anthony Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Hurd, Douglas Neubert, Michael Tebbit, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark Newton, Tony Temple-Morris, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Normanton, Tom Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
James, David Nott, John Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wansfd & W'df'd) Onslow, Cranley Thompson, George
Jessel, Toby Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Osborn, John Townsend, Cyril D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Page, John (Harrow, West) Trotter, Neville
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Tugendhat, Christopher
Jopling, Michael Paisley, Rev Ian van Straubenzee, W. R.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Pardoe, John Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Kaberry, Sir Donald Penhaligon, David Viggers, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Percival, Ian Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Kershaw, Anthony Peyton, Rt Hon John Wakeham, John
Kilfedder, James Pink, R. Bonner Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Kimball, Marcus Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Price, David (Eastleigh) Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Prior, Rt Hon James Wall, Patrick
Kirk, Sir Peter Pym, Rt Hon Francis Walters, Dennis
Kitson, Sir Timothy Raison, Timothy Warren, Kenneth
Knight, Mrs Jill Rathbone, Tim Watt, Hamish
Knox, David Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Weatherill, Bernard
Lamont, Norman Rees-Davies, W. R. Wells, John
Lane, David Reid, George Welsh, Andrew
Langford-Holt, Sir John Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Latham, Michael (Melton) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Wiggin, Jerry
Lawrence, Ivan Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Wigley, Dafydd
Lawson, Nigel Ridley, Hon Nicholas Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Ridsdale, Julian Winterton, Nicholas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rifkind, Malcolm Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Lloyd, Ian Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Loveridge, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Younger, Hon George
Luce, Richard Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
McAdden, Sir Stephen Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacCormick, Iain Ross, William (Londonderry) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
McCrindle, Robert Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Mr. Cecil Parkinson.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.