§
Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 8, line 2, after "applies" insert
or any person concerned with the affairs of such an organisation,
§ Mr. John GrantI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. GrantLords Amendment No. 13 was originally debated in Committee and withdrawn when I undertook to look again at the scope of the clause. Having re-examined the provision in the light of the points raised I can assure the House, as my right hon. and noble Friend gave an assurance in another place, that the amendment is unnecessary. Any complaint of discrimination which might arise in respect of membership of an organisation covered by Clause 11 could already have been resolved within the terms of the Bill as it stood before it was amended.
Decisions as to whether an individual is admitted to membership of, for example, a trade union rest only with persons acting with the authority of the union. No shop steward can take a decision on this without such authority. The Bill ensures that when anyone acts with the authority of a trade union, or other organisation covered by Clause 11, then both he and the organisation are liable for any unlawful discriminatory acts committed which are authorised by the organisation.
I doubt whether it is likely to occur in practice, but if a shop steward, acting without the union's authority, discriminates on racial grounds by declining, for example, to process an application for trade union membership, the aggrieved person could take his complaint to a full-time union official. That official would be able on behalf of the union to ensure that the application was properly dealt with. If, after this had been done, membership was refused, and the aggrieved person still believed that the refusal was on racial grounds, it would then be open to him to make a complaint against the trade union to an industrial tribunal under Clause 11.
I turn now to Lords Amendment No. 14. This was moved in another place as it was felt that if, for example, a shop steward discriminated in refusing to take up a union member's grievance, the individual concerned would have no remedy under the Bill as in such cases the shop steward would not usually be acting on behalf of his union.
We have given this a great deal of thought and we see serious difficulties with this amendment. We believe that these difficulties have no counterpart in the operation of the other provisions of the Bill because of the special circumstances 540 in which shop stewards operate when handling the grievances of their members.
A union member from a minority racial group might, say, believe that he was not being allocated to the best paying jobs because of his colour. He might complain of this to his shop steward who would, for example, explore this matter with the foreman. The shop steward might be persuaded that the allocation of work was reasonable but be unable to convince the worker concerned that this was the case. If subsection (3) remained as amended, the worker could subsequently make a complaint to an industrial tribunal alleging that the shop steward had discriminated in failing to resolve his grievance. The shop steward, however, would have taken the proper steps to follow up the complaint of the worker, and it is impossible to see what more he could have done or that what he had done was wrong.
Nevertheless, he would be subjected to close and extensive examination of his actions and motives. Resort to the law in that way could have serious and harmful effects on racial and industrial relations. It might tend to discredit the shop steward in the eyes of the work group to whom he was directly responsible and might well make it more difficult in future to find union members willing to take on the duties of shop stewards.
Some people have the idea that people are "raring" to become shop stewards and to flex their industrial muscles. That is a totally unrealistic view. Most of them are persuaded to do the job; and, indeed, they are reluctant volunteers. They will certainly be less anxious to become volunteers if they run the risk of the penalties that might follow. We must also consider the difficulty of bringing one worker into a face-to-face conflict with another worker in an industrial tribunal. That could well leave an indelible mark on industrial relations.
It has been argued that the amendment only replaces words which are already in Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1968. There is, however, an important difference between this Bill and the 1968 Act. Under the 1968 Act all complaints of unlawful discrimination, against, say, shop stewards, are made to and investigated by the Race Relations Board.
541 The Board alone can take proceedings in the courts. Under the Bill an individual worker may make a complaint direct to an industrial tribunal if he believes that he has been discriminated against in employment or related matters.
There are other objections. The handling of a grievance depends to a great extent on the good will with which it is carried out, and a judicial declaration cannot enforce this good will. Secondly, if it so happened that a shop steward was determined to disregard a tribunal decision, there could be serious industrial relations problems stemming from that action. Indeed, there would be a real danger of bringing the law into disrepute without providing any benefit to the individual applicant.
I hope that the Opposition will remember that. I hope that they have learned some lessons from the disastrous consequences of their industrial relations legislation in 1971. They thought at the time that nobody could possibly have been sent to gaol as a result of those provisions. They thought that there would never be any question of a "Pentonville Five" and the intervention of the Official Solicitor. That was not a farce but an industrial relations tragedy.
If a shop steward fails to deal with a worker's grievance and believes the reason for this lies in racial discrimination, the most practicable way to proceed is for the complainant to take up his grievance with the union through his branch or with the full-time officer. It would then be a matter for the union to decise how to press the grievance and how to deal with the steward. This would be more in the interests of the individual complainant and of good race and industrial relations than to invoke the law against a shop steward, who will be the complainant's fellow worker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] No, I am not reading, but I am speaking partly from a Civil Service brief, if Conservative Members really want to know.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerIf hon. Members wish to make interventions I hope that they will do so in a proper fashion.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. GrantI am speaking from a brief on technical points, but I am using my own words and my own notes. There- 542 fore, the Opposition can affix these words to me personally.
The House will, no doubt, be aware of the considerable steps which the trade union movement has recently taken to combat discrimination. These have the wholehearted support of the Government. The TUC is involved in a campaign against racialism and has recently set up an Equal Rights Committee and a Race Relations Advisory Committee to promote equal opportunity. This includes work to try to ensure that all trade unionists, including shop stewards, are aware of their responsibilities in this area.
The Government have asked the TUC General Council to examine the question of further steps that may need to be taken to ensure that effective procedures exist to deal with complaints arising from the relationship between individual unions and their members, and that members of racial minority groups are fully aware of those procedures.
The TUC has made it clear that the objections to the Lords amendments are not based on any desire by trade unions to avoid their responsibilities, but are based on a firm belief that they will hinder good relations at work. The Government agree with that conclusion.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)I agreed with virtually everything the Minister said, until he felt it necessary to range quite outside the ambit of the Bill and to deal with questions involving industrial relations legislation in an earlier Parliament and, indeed, to raise matters pertaining to the "Pentonville Five". For one moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I felt that you would feel obliged to ask the Minister to return to the subject in hand.
Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI was fully aware that the Minister would immediately return to the subject matter under discussion.
§ Mr. GriffithsI knew that you decided to take no action because you foresaw the Minister's return to the paths of righteousness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I shall keep my intervention brief, because I wish to put one simple point to the Minister. Many Opposition Members have been provided with briefs and many have read them to the House. I 543 wish to ask the Minister whether the brief that he read was produced by a civil servant, by his party organisation or by the TUC. Much of what he said—I know that he accepts personal responsibility for it—was derived from that other place to which his party appears to give more attention than it does to the other House of Parliament—namely, the TUC. We do not wish to quarrel about this matter, but if the Minister wishes to make progress on the Bill he will be wise not to import pejorative material involving previous legislation that has nothing to do with this Bill.
§ Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)I wish to deal with a slightly different point, and I shall do so briefly. I thought that the Minister's speech was persuasive in dealing with the difficulties of shop stewards, but surely the logic behind the Government's support of the Bill can apply equally to an employer or to an agent or manager working for an employer.
Let me take as an example the situation at a hospital with which I am familiar but the name of which I shall refrain from mentioning. That hospital employs a number of hospital orderlies and cleaners who come from various West Indian islands. It was considered that in the cause of good industrial relations those workers should be kept grouped together. In other words, those from Nevis and St. Kitts worked in one group and were kept separate from another group who came from Jamaica. As I read the provisions of the Bill, accusations of discrimination could be levelled at the hospital authorities. The hospital authorities found, however, that the workers concerned were happier when working in those groupings. In other words, in the real world things worked out well and there was no basic motivation of the kind of discrimination at which the Bill is aimed.
If the Minister feels that their Lordships are wrong to be as specific in these provisions as to go to individual shop stewards rather than to leave the matter with the generality of the trade unions, surely the same argument applies to employers' organisations.
§ Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)The Minister must by now realise that in future discussions he would be well 544 advised not to drag in extraneous matter involving earlier industrial relations legislation. That kind of self-righteousness will get him nowhere. He well knows that the Labour Party proposed to do exactly the same thing in its proposals in "In Place of Strife" and in its White Paper at the last General Election. Therefore, it is hypocritical and foolish to bring in such extraneous material.
I must confess that I do not think the Minister has made out a good case in respect of the amendments. I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of accepting them. The hon. Gentleman argued that if a shop steward refused to process an application for membership he would have no authority to do so and that the complainant would have access to the appropriate authority, namely, the trade union. He argued that the trade union would be able to effect membership and that no detriment would arise. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that the shop steward is an irrelevance. In so doing he was not being entirely accurate or fair to his own Bill.
Detriment would arise in the case of a shop steward who raised objections, introduced difficulties or refused to process a coloured worker's application for membership. By acting in that way he would be discriminating, although he might have no authority to do so. The detriment of non-membership could be overcome by going to the appropriate authority, but the fact that such difficulties had been introduced would produce a detriment in the terms of the Bill, in that they would at least hurt the feelings of the individual applicant, the complainant, and be offensive to him. The hurting of feelings is a detriment under the Bill. In Clause 57 a person can be fined if he hurts the feelings of an individual. It would be hurtful to the feelings of an individual applicant if a shop steward raised obstacles, introduced difficulties or acted in a discriminatory manner regarding an application for trade union membership, irrespective of whether he had authority to do so.
The detriment of hurt feelings would remain even after the application had been processed by the appropriate authority, namely the trade union. That detriment could never be erased by the individual going over the head of the 545 shop steward and having his membership endorsed by the appropriate authority. Therefore, the shop steward has a responsibility and a capacity to damage and cause detriment to the applicant that is not covered by the fact that the applicant can ultimately obtain membership. To that extent we should include shop stewards if we are to include the detriment of hurt feelings, which is a detriment that can result in damages or a fine under Clause 57. To that extent I think that the Minister has not given a full account of the role of the shop steward.
I fully appreciate that we are dealing with an extremely sensitive area—an area in which we all want to do what is best and most constructive. However, as a matter of principle and in terms of achieving a fair deal in practice, it must be right that the Bill should leave no shadow of doubt about what shop stewards have by way of responsibilities and liabilities.
In another place, in arguing against the amendment, Lord Jacques gave a rather vivid example that was slightly different from the one adopted by the Minister. The noble Lord suggested that a union member of a minority racial group—for example, a Pakistani—may believe that he is not being allocated the best paying jobs because of his colour. It was said that he may complain about that to the shop steward. Indeed, the Pakistani may even suspect that the shop steward has been in collusion with the management in determining the allocation of the best-paid jobs or the best places of work within the plant. The shop steward, whatever his real guilt or absence of guilt, may be unable to convince the complainant, after consultation with the firm or the management, that the job allocations have not been unfair and that the complainant has not been offered the lower-paid jobs.
Are we saying that he should have no recourse in those circumstances? It may be that the Pakistani, for example, has strong suspicions that the shop steward has been in collusion with the firm regarding the allocation of jobs, or the kind of work that he undertakes, although he cannot be certain. He may not be satisfied that he has had a fair deal from the shop steward. Are we saying that in that situation he should 546 have no recourse to the machinery that applies throughout the rest of the Bill and in practically every other situation that can be conceived?
It is exactly that situation of doubt—the feeling that one is not being fairly treated—that demands that we go out of our way to provide access and facilities for the complainant to bring the matter to the notice of the appropriate tribunal or judicial authority. It is an area where there is uncertainty and where racial minority groups may feel that they are getting a raw deal. The Bill exists in order to make special provision for such situations. However, in this narrow area the argument is that even though the complainant may have a strong suspicion that the shop steward has not given him a fair deal, it is such a sensitive area that we must exclude it from the normal processes of testing by a tribunal.
The Under-Secretary of State repeated what Lord Jacques said on an earlier occasion. In fact, the noble Lord gave three reasons why we should not expose shop stewards to the hazards of scrutiny by a tribunal. He said:
It might tend to discourage the shop steward in the eyes of the work group to whom he was directly responsible. It might well make it more difficult to find union members in the future who are willing to take on a shop steward's responsibilities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29th September 1976; Vol. 374, c. 494.]The Minister emphasised that and said that shop stewards are not always muscle men who press forward to get the job. That argument raises a conflict and sounds very much like special pleading. It sounds very much as if the Government have paid considerable heed to the words that Mr. Len Murray uttered in his statement at the end of August. It seems that the influence of the trade unions and of Congress House has been considerable. Mr. Len Murray said:To make stewards personally responsible would create many industrial relation difficulties without necessarily leading to the grievance being taken up. We are not unwilling to accept our obligations. But we believe we can deal with these problems in the informal way we have done up to now without the introduction of a legal definition that would expose shop stewards to legal action.That is the argument that we apply to profesional clubs, for example. We say that in this sensitive area it is better to employ informality and common sense. 547 We say that the climate of opinion and internal pressures bring about the desired result and that the use of formal machinery is not necessary or desirable. That is exactly the point that the Government have taken. They wish to give the trade union movement and shop stewards that degree of freedom when they say that they will not attempt to legislate in this sensitive area.The nonsense of their position is that other parts of the Bill make the individual prosecution of shop stewards inescapable. However, the Government have excluded that provision from a part of the Bill that is directly relevant to shop stewards. Clauses 32 and 33 make it clear beyond peradventure that shop stewards are exposed to the tribunal procedure and individual prosecution. That is what is so ludicrous. The Lord Chancellor said so in terms. He said:
Subsection (1) ensures that a person who knowingly aids another to do an act of unlawful discrimination is treated as doing that act himself.He continued:The clause is also important in relation to Clause 32 which we have just discussed and which makes the employer liable for the unlawful acts of his employee in the course of his employment but, if Clause 33(2) were not in the Bill, the employer would stand alone in taking responsibility for the employee's unlawful act. Subsection (2) makes it clear in a case like that, the employee is treated as aiding his employer, so that they are both responsible for the unlawful act."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30th September 1976; Vol. 374, c. 737–8.]The Lord Chancellor said in terms that under Clauses 32 and 33 the shop steward can be liable to individual prosecution in an aiding and abetting situation.7.30 p.m.
Let us take a situation in which a shop steward is told by the management "We have to declare 1,000 redundancies. It will cause intense bitterness if we retain a lot of recently arrived Pakistanis and sack a lot of white people, so we must devise a formula for the sake of industrial peace, ensuring that the 'last in, first out' principle is applied, and as the Pakistanis have mostly arrived in the last three years we had better specify that those who have are liable to redundancy", and the shop steward agrees. Such a proposition surely gives the appearance of a sense of fair been with the firm for less than five years 548 play. Yet the shop steward's position is that of aiding and abetting discrimination, either direct and intentional or indirect and intentional. He has responsibility.
But the Government refuse to make the shop steward responsible in the clause dealing with trade unions. They ensure that he is personally responsible under Clauses 32 and 33, having said that it is intolerable that, in the sensitive area of industrial relations, he should be exposed to the tribunal procedure. The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want to exclude shop stewards from responsibility under the Bill, they must amend Clauses 32 and 33. If they want to include them in the Bill, then they should include them in this clause.
§ Mr. John GrantBy leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). Perhaps I should not be surprised at the sensitivity displayed by him and by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) because I mentioned the "Pentonville Five". I assure them, however, that I have no brief from any civil servant on that point. The note I have—which I am prepared to show them—is entirely in my own handwriting. If blame is to be apportioned, I must accept it myself. But I do not think that there is blame to be apportioned. I thought that there was a comparison to be made, and it was a fair comparison. I think that there is undue sensitivity among hon. Members about this, but it is understandable.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) for his remarks about the way I deployed the case, but I think that the essential difference between the situation of a shop steward and that of an employer or an agent for an employer is that the shop steward is a volunteer and is elected to his position. I have said throughout that there is a special case to be made in this situation, and I make no apology for it. I think that there is a genuine distinction here.
§ Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East)In the clause, surely we are referring to an agent of an organisation of employers and not an agent of an employer.
§ Mr. GrantThe shop steward is the agent of the people who elect him. This point takes me to the case deployed by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash. In 549 the end, we come down to a balance of advantage. We see the balance of advantage both in race relations terms and in industrial relations terms in the case I have deployed. That is not to say that there is not a case in the other direction. This is a difficult and complicated area, to which we gave great thought.
We believe, however, that the Lords amendment would do much more harm than good. The hon. Gentleman said that we had paid undue heed to the TUC. I think it was right to pay heed to the TUC because we are talking of workers' representatives, and in so far as we can get a view in respect of their interests we have to take it from the TUC, which approached us and wanted to express a view. It was right to listen to the TUC.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsNo one is dissenting from that, but why did the Government take the TUC's argument in one place but not in another?
§ Mr. GrantThe answer is that the difference between Clauses 32 and 33 and Clause 11 is that, in the first case, although a shop steward may be individually liable, the union would also be liable, whereas under Clause 11 the shop steward could be liable alone, and that is what we are trying to avoid.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 145.
551| Division No. 346.] | AYES | [7.37 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank | Forrester, John | Mikardo, Ian |
| Anderson, Donald | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Archer, Peter | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Freeson, Reginald | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Ashley, Jack | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Moyle, Roland |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Newens, Stanley |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Gilbert, Dr John | Oakes, Gordon |
| Bates, Alt | Ginsburg, David | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Golding, John | Ovenden, John |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Gourlay, Harry | Park, George |
| Bishop, E. S. | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Parker, John |
| Boardman, H. | Grant, John (Islington C) | Parry, Robert |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Perry, Ernest |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Harper, Joseph | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hatton, Frank | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Henderson, Douglas | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Hooley, Frank | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Campbell, Ian | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Rodgers George (Chorley) |
| Cant, R. B. | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Roper, John |
| Cartwright, John | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Hunter, Adam | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Jeger, Mrs Lena | Rowlands, Ted |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | John, Brynmor | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Cohen, Stanley | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Coleman, Donald | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Silverman, Julius |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Kaufman, Gerald | Small, William |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Lamble, David | Spearing, Nigel |
| Cronin, John | Lamborn, Harry | Stallard, A. W. |
| Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) | Lamond, James | Stoddart, David |
| Cryer, Bob | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Stott, Roger |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Lee, John | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Swain, Thomas |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | McCartney, Hugh | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Dempsey, James | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Doig, Peter | McElhone, Frank | Thompson, George |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Tuck, Raphael |
| Dunnett, Jack | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Eadie, Alex | MacKenzie, Gregor | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Edge, Geoff | Maclennan, Robert | Watkins, David |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Walkinson, John |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Magee, Bryan | Watt, Hamish |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Mahon, Simon | Weetch, Ken |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Wellbeloved, James |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Marks, Kenneth | Welsh, Andrew |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Marquand, David | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | White, James (Pollock) |
| Flannery, Martin | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Whitlock, William |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Maynard, Miss Joan | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Ford, Ben | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) | Woof, Robert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) | Wrigglesworth, Ian | Mr. Thomas Cox and |
| Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) | Young, David (Bolton E) | Mr. James Tinn. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Hall, Sir John | Page, John (Harrow West) |
| Alison, Michael | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Beith, A. J. | Hampson, Dr Keith | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Bell, Ronald | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Penhaligon, David |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Havers, Sir Michael | Percival, Ian |
| Benyon, W. | Hawkins, Paul | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hayhoe, Barney | Raison, Timothy |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hicks, Robert | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Body, Richard | Higgins, Terence L. | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Holland, Philip | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hooson, Emlyn | Ross, William (Londonderry) |
| Brittan, Leon | Hordern, Peter | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Budgen, Nick | Hunt, John (Bromley) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Burden, F. A. | Hurd, Douglas | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Shersby, Michael |
| Carson, John | James, David | Sims, Roger |
| Channon, Paul | Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wans't'd & W'df'd) | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Churchill, W. S. | Jessel, Toby | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Jopling, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Clegg, Walter | Kershaw, Anthony | Sproat, Iain |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Cope, John | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) | Lawrence, Ivan | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Crouch, David | Lawson, Nigel | Stokes, John |
| Crowder, F. P. | Le Marchant, Spencer | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Lloyd, Ian | Tebbit, Norman |
| Durant, Tony | Luce, Richard | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | McCrindle, Robert | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Elliott, Sir William | Macfarlane, Neil | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Eyre, Reginald | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Vaughan, Dr Gerald |
| Farr, John | Marten, Neil | Viggers, Peter |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mates, Michael | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Maude, Angus | Wakeham, John |
| Forman, Nigel | Mawby, Ray | Wall, Patrick |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Walters, Dennis |
| Freud, Clement | Mayhew, Patrick | Wells, John |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Goodhew, Victor | Miscampbell, Norman | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Gorst, John | Moate, Roger | Wood, Rt Hon Richard |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Molyneaux, James | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Gray, Hamish | Monro, Hector | |
| Grieve, Percy | Morgan, Geraint | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Griffiths, Eldon | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Mr. John Corrie and |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Mudd, David | Mr. Fred Silvester. |
| Grist, Ian | Neave, Airey |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.