HC Deb 28 November 1978 vol 959 cc363-95

10.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

I beg to move, That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take with this order the second order: That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

Mr. Walker

I am grateful that the House has agreed to take the two orders together.

The Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order is laid in accordance with section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review in each calendar year of certain limits in the Act.

This is the second annual review. The limits reviewed are those concerned with guarantee payments to workers on short-time and weekly earnings limit laid down for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments, certain unfair dismissal awards and certain debts in relation to the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to take three factors into account in the review: the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review; the national economic situation as a whole, and such other matters as he thinks relevant ". If in the light of his review the Secretary of State considers that any of the limits should be changed, he must prepare and lay before each House the draft of an order giving effect to his decision which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. If he considers that any of the limits should not be varied, he must lay before each House a report stating his reason.

We decided that all the monetary limits covered by the review should be raised by about 10 per cent., and that decision is set out in the order now before the House. We decided not to vary two of the limits involved in guarantee pay, and that decision is explained in the report which was laid at the same time as the order.

If the order is approved in both Houses, it will come into effect on 1st February 1979. This follows the pattern established last year, when the increases in the limits came into effect on 1st February 1978.

Let me briefly explain the considerations that led to this decision. The first factor that the Secretary of State must take into account is the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review. The index of average earnings indicates that, averaged over the whole economy, the level of earnings in August was 13.9 per cent. higher than 12 months previously and in September the figure was 15 per cent. higher.

The second factor to be taken into account is the national economic situation as a whole. The Government continue to give priority to the need for continuing restraint and for keeping costs to employers as low as possible. In the light of this, we decided that although the earnings figures would suggest an increase of nearer 15 per cent., the right figure is 10 per cent. I shall now explain what this means in practice, with the various limits.

First, let me deal with guarantee pay. The increase of 10 per cent. in the guarantee pay limit means that, from 1st February 1979, the maximum guarantee pay for days on which it is payable will be £.7.25, compared with £6.60 at present. Guarantee pay is normally payable for the first five days of short-time working in each quarter. The quarters commence on 1st February, 1st May, 1st August, and 1st November. The Secretary of State is required by section 148 of the Act to review both the five-day limit and the period of a quarter within which it applies. We have decided to make no change to either limit. The report that has been laid before the House sets out the reasons for not altering these limits.

We are discussing with the TUC and CBI the proposals put forward in a consultative document on short-time working compensation last April. It is essential that we take into account the views of both sides of industry before bringing forward later in the Session legislation that would replace the present guarantee pay scheme.

Because we are engaged in discussions about the form that the new arrangements for compensating short-time working are to take, it seems sensible to leave the basis of the present payments unaltered.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that in the debate on these matters in another place it was asked whether the weekly payments are taxable. The Minister answering said that he was not sure. Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us whether the weekly payments of £7.25, as opposed to the lump sum, are taxable?

Mr. Walker

The guarantee payments are regarded as ordinary pay. I am sure that they are so regarded, but so that the matter is beyond doubt I shall ensure that it is investigated before we conclude the debate.

I refer to the weekly earnings limit of £100 on redundancy pay and other related payments. I take redundancy payments first, as they set the standard for the rest. The effect of the order is to raise the weekly earnings limit to £110. This means that the new maximum redundancy payment will be £3,300—that is, 30 weeks at £110, which is the amount payable to a man of 61 who has served 20 years and gets one and a half weeks' pay for each year of service.

I turn next to the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal. As the award is intended to reflect the amount of redundancy payment which would have been received by an employee if he had been made redundant instead of being unfairly dismissed, it follows that the limit should remain in line with the redundancy payments earnings limit. Consequently, the order proposes that it, too, should be increased from £100 to £110. The new maximum payable will be exactly the same as the maximum redundancy payment, namely £3,300.

The additional award which a tribunal may award where the employer has refused to comply with an order for re-instatement or re-engagement is also currently subject to a £100 weekly earnings limit. There are no substantial reasons for allowing the limit to get out of line with the limit for redundancy payments. It is right to keep the link between redundancy payments and the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal, and therefore it is sensible to keep the limits in step throughout the unfair dismissal provisions and to adopt £110 a week also as the limit on a week's earnings for the purpose of calculating the additional award.

Finally, then, are payments to employees in the case of an employer's insolvency. These, too, have been subject to a weekly earnings limit of £100, and the order raises them to £110.

The additional cost to public funds of the proposals in the order is estimated at £1,750,000. That is the estimated additional cost to the redundancy fund.

I can sum up the effect of the variation of limits order by saying that it increases by 10 per cent. the monetary limit for guarantee pay and the weekly earnings limit used for the calculation of a redundancy payment and for the purposes of certain unfair dismissal and insolvency awards. The guarantee pay limit goes up from £6.60 to £7.25, and the weekly earnings limit goes up from £100 to £110. These increases take account of the three factors that I described earlier, and I hope that they will commend themselves to the House as being a reasonable outcome of the review.

I confirm what I said to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) earlier. I have received confirmation that the guarantee pay is subject to taxation in the same way as is normal pay.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

Does my hon. Friend accept that 4,000 workers onThe Timeswho are threatened with being locked out of their jobs from Thursday midnight, not understanding the way in which we go about these matters in this place, may see the variation order as some encouragement to the management to indulge in the lockout? Will my hon. Friend make clear that the higher rates proposed in the orders have nothing to do with that, and make no comment on the lockout or possible abuses of the Employment Protection Act that are being proposed by the management?

Mr. Walker

The order does not become effective until 1st February 1979 and so does not apply to that situation. I am bound to say in passing—I do not want to widen the debate—that if the unhappy situation at Times Newspapers Ltd. proceeds as threatened some difficult legal problems will arise, I believe, in connection with the question whether there are redundancies, how many redundancies, and what the effect on the payment of rebates will be. There is a range of issues. I wonder whether those involved have addressed themselves to this question. I must resist the temptation to be drawn into a wider discussion. [Interruption.] I hear someone on the Tory Benches asking"Who are those involved? ". It has been pointed out that there are nearly 5,000 jobs at risk here. This is a serious issue.

I turn to the other order for which I seek approval. This is of a rather different sort. It has been laid before the House in accordance with section 75(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and its effect is to raise the limit on the compensatory award for unfair dismissal from £5,200 to £5,750. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is not present. In our last debate on this matter he pressed me hard to do exactly what we are now doing. I would expect him to be comforted by what I have said.

The limit to which I have referred is not subject to the annual review, but it may be raised from time to time. There is a power within the Act enabling my right hon. Friend to raise it. The compensatory award is given in addition to the basic award for unfair dismissal and it is tailored to the individual employee's loss. The limit on the compensatory award has been £5,200 since September 1974. Very few people now received £5,200 but there were eight cases in 1977, and it seems right to make a modest increase in the limit to allow for the effects of inflation. Bearing in mind the need to keep down costs to employers, we have decided to raise the limit by a shade more than 10 per cent, to £5,750. This seems to me a sensible and reasonable proposal.

There is one final point that I should make on this limit. It will apply not only to unfair dismissal compensatory awards but to compensation that may be awarded by industrial tribunals in cases where complaints of discrimination in employment under the Sex Discrimination or Race Relations Acts have been upheld.

The increases proposed in the draft orders represent a modest increase in the limits that make some allowance for the effect of inflation without adding disproportionately to employers' costs.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

We believe that the Government are ill-advised and insensitive in bringing forward these orders containing 10 per cent. increases at this time—and particularly on a day when the Government are imposing arbitrary sanctions on Ford for breaking the 5 per cent. wages limit. The Government's stupidity in making such proposals is astonishing.

Last year, when the Government came forward with proposals for 10 per cent. increases, these were generally accepted in the House. They were in line with the Government's view on 10 per cent. pay increases. They were also in line with other of the criteria that the Government are enjoined by the legislation to take into account in arriving at their decision. But this year it really is astonishing that on this day the Government should propose 10 per cent. increases in these matters when they are acting as they are with 5 per cent. pay limits for others.

It is important to look at various aspects of the matter in some detail. The Minister of State, in explaining the provisions of the orders, referred to redundancy pay. We must take account of the scandalous increase in the size of the redundancy fund, which has been allowed to grow during recent years. The worst fears that I and my hon. Friends expressed at the time of the redundancy payments legislation of 1977 have been fully realised. The House will recall that at that time, on a miscalculation, the Government thought that the redundancy fund was moving into deficit. On a recalculation it was discovered that at the end of 1976 the redundancy fund was in modest surplus of £5.3 million. As a result of the actions that the Government have taken, that redundancy fund grew, by 31st December 1977, to £28.9 million, and now, in November 1978, the surplus in that fund is standing at over £60 million.

I ask a Written Question, to which I received a reply yesterday from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. I asked whether the Government would propose to Parliament that the amount of rebate be increased or employers' contributions be reduced". It was never the intention of the 1965 redundancy payment legislation that it should be built up as a way of gaining resources for the Government of the day. The Minister replied that The current surplus is not unreasonable given the fluctuations which have occurred in the amount of rebate payable from the Fund over the years. What the Ministers means by that is the fund has grown because the Government have reduced the amount of rebate payable to employers. The Minister went on to say that It serves also to reduce the public sector borrowing requirements."—[Official Report, 27th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 39.] What on earth has that to do with the redundancy payments scheme? This is a gross abuse and misuse of the provisions of legislation passed by this House. The Bill that was put forward to provide reasonable arrangements for people made redundant is now being used by the Government as a back-door way of raising money in order to reduce the Government's borrowing requirement.

It is absolutely inappropriate that the Government, with this background of having allowed the redundancy fund to grow so large, should not be coming forward now with an order increasing the size of the rebate. The Government pay no money into the fund at all. It is really industry's fund. The Government only administer it and, indeed, make a charge for the administration. The money is wholly raised from industry. it can be used only to meet redundancy payments. It is, as I say, a misuse and an abuse of these procedures that the Government are making industry lend them money, under the guise of collecting these contributions to the redundancy fund, in a way which otherwise industry would not do.

We see the Government indulging in other practices of enforced loan. Earlier today a number of hon. Members on each side of the House were listening to representatives of the Wine and Spirit Association, talking of the inequity of the loan that that industry makes to the Government of about £150 million a year because proper arrangements for deferring excise duty are not entered into. This is on the same parallel—the Government are misusing legislation and taking money from industry. It seems that Department Ministers are so craven and lily-livered in their approach that they are not able to insist that the rebate is raised from its present level of 41 per cent. to at least 50 per cent. without further delay.

Four months ago one of the junior Ministers said that the possibility of restoring the rebate to 50 per cent. was under consideration. After representations had been made to the Secretary of State this month, he was still saying that that possibility was under consideration. That is all Ministers do; they just consider things. It is time they took action and lived up to their Department's reputation. They should take account of the genuine spirit of the redundancy legislation which they are signally failing to follow at present.

The rebates were 75 per cent. until 1969, when a Labour Government cut them to 50 per cent. It was another Labour Government who cut them again, to 41 per cent. The fact that the rebates have been cut places a burden on industry, particularly small businesses. It causes difficulties and in its own way mitigates against job opportunities.

We shall vote against the order to increase the amount of redundancy payments in order to draw attention to the Government's gross mishandling of these matters. Ministers should give urgent priority to raising the rebates, and until they get their priorities right they will get no support from us.

Another aspect of the question deals with unfair dismissal. Again, we had the absurd assertion from the Minister at Question Time today that on the recent debate on industrial tribunals the Government won the argument. Ministers should reread the debate on 21st November last year—hardly recent, but perhaps it could be so described in Government thinking. They would find that the Government were shot out of the water in which they were wallowing by the arguments produced at that time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will remind the House whether they were discussing an increase in compensation.

Mr. Hayhoe

My arguments are absolutely relevant. The last time we discussed these orders these points were raised and the then occupant of the Chair accepted that they were relevant.

The issue with which these orders are concerned is the raising of limits. One must take account of the whole public attitude towards the question of unfair dismissal, the compensation available, and the grave disquiet about the number of cases that have occurred.

If the House is seen merely to be allowing the increase in the amount that may be awarded by tribunals in unfair dismissal cases without paying some attention to the considerable public disquiet, it would be falling below the standards demanded of it. The Government have made some improvements in these procedures, which make the changes in compensation a little more acceptable, but many more changes need to be made before it would be right for us to nod through increases in the amount that can be paid in unfair dismissal compensation. It is inopportune for the Government to bring forward proposals to increase the limits at a time of so much public disquiet.

As we saw from the debate in another place, many cases are being argued about and causing public controversy.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

They are blown up by the press.

Mr. Hayhoe

Of course the press blows up some of these matters in ways that the hon. Gentleman may not like. Sometimes cases are blown up in ways that I do not like, but even in the research carried out by the policy study institute at the Government's request and in the survey of the opinion research centre on the effect of employment protection legislation on businesses concern is expressed about the way in which unfair dismissal cases are handled.

As a result of the orders, the maximum claims will be increased from £13,400 to £14,770. I do not believe that this should be done at a time when there is so much public disquiet. The House should be reflecting this concern.

The case of the Vauxhall worker has filled many column inches in the press, and was referred to in another place. That gentleman was awarded compensation of £7,319. I make no criticism of the members of the industrial tribunal concerned. As far as I am aware, they came to a unanimous decision. I was not present at the hearing, and I am in no position to judge the balance of the argument one way or the other. However, I have read the press reports and other documents associated with the case, and on that evidence it seems to be a somewhat curious decision. It is suggested that other workers found in similar circumstances had been treated differently by the company. I understand that they used the internal disputes proceedures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have the greatest difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the terms of the order, which deals solely with the question whether the maximum amount of compensation should be increased.

Mr. Hayhoe

Part of the public disquiet is centred around the amount of compensation. The order will increase the compensation limits. If there were no public concern, I should not be arguing as I am. It is because there is public disquiet, as a result of the press reports of this and other cases, that my colleagues and I believe that it is inappropriate for the Government to bring forward these proposals at this time, instead of dealing with matters of greater substance relating to the whole way in which unfair dismissal cases are treated.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

No.

Mr. Cryer

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) for ignoring the shouted, bellicose instructions of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the median figure for compensation awards is far removed from the single example that he has quoted and is, in fact, in the low hundreds? If the hon. Gentleman is worried about public concern, why does he not concentrate on the average awards and stop using dramatic exaggerations in order to try to mount the bandwagon that he and his Tory friends are trying to get rolling?

Mr. Hayhoe

I have not exaggerated. Is the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) suggesting that the award of £7,319 is exaggeration?

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Member is using that award as a dramatic exaggeration. It is not typical, and the hon. Member knows it. He should use the average figure, which is between £300 and £400. Why does he not quote that figure?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am not exaggerating. I am explaining what happens in a particular case. If the hon. Member had paid the attention that I have paid to these matters and had attended the last debate on the subject he would know that I have made it clear that the median level of awards is much below that figure. By his interventions, the hon. Member for Keighley shows his appalling ignorance of earlier discussions. I have no doubt that he was involved in matters related to other Departments and was not trying to refurbish his political image so that he can hawk himself round other constituencies when his own constituency rejects him at the next election.

Mr. Rooker

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have drawn the attention of the hon. Member for Brent-ford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) to the fact that he was becoming out of order. I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I want a wide debate. Surely the hon. Member is out of order now. He is taking up the valuable time of those hon. Members who want to challenge his spurious and dishonest argument.

Mr. Hayhoe

I have been courteous and given way to the hon. Member for Keighley who twice has displayed his appalling ignorance of these matters. Perhaps an attempt should be made to defend him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said that he did not intend to be critical of the tribunals. But he was pushed from that intention by Labour Members below the Gangway. I have no such inhibition My hon. Friend is justified in using this example because it was blazoned across the headlines of every newspaper in the country. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the award—which was equal to winning a minor prize on the football pools—for going to sleep on the job must have had an effect upon every worker in the country? That worker must have believed that it is better to go to sleep than to work.

Mr. Hayhoe

Awards such as this must cause considerable public disquiet. It is interesting that the tribunal judged that there was a 50 per cent. liability by the worker. In arriving at the liability the tribunal did not use the overall limits established by legislation. Those limits applied not to the 100 per cent. but came into operation when the 50 per cent. figure was used. The Minister should carefully examine the relationship between the limits set down and the percentage claims that are made. The Employment Protection Act, or at least the way in which I understand it is being implemented, leads to considerable unfairness.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument about the so-called Vauxhall case. Does he accept that it is atypical, because it was inflated by the fact that a reinstatement order was made which was not honoured by the employers and that therefore £1,900 was added to the sum awarded? Even removing that £1,900, given that the rest was calculated with a 50 per cent. disregard because of the condition of the application, does this not show that the present limits are out of line with inflation? Does the hon. Member agree that the figures in that case show that the limits are inadequate?

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not accept that for a moment. The lesson of this case and of any fair-minded assessment of the cases dealt with generally by the tribunals is that it is inappropriate to be raising the limits at this time. Of course this case appears particularly absurd—

Mr. Corbett

Tell us another one.

Mr. Hayhoe

I can quote a number of cases from my files, but it would be wrong to detain the House. A number of cases have gone to the tribunals but have been turned down because of the excessively legalistic approach adopted. We gave several examples in the debate on 21st November 1977. Questions have been asked about cases, and about the costs incurred by employers in fighting cases which are often based on little substance. It was said at Question Time today that between 65 per cent. and 68 per cent. of cases are lost.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing the working or the unsatisfactory working of industrial tribunals, we are discussing the limits of compensation.

Mr. Hayhoe

I should not be sidetracked by the interventions of Labour Members below the Gangway, but surely it is relevant to describe how the tribunals work and the limits under which they operate. If the limits were minuscule, there would be little public disquiet. If they were high, there would be a different level of public disquiet. I am talking about what seem to be curious decisions of tribunals.

The converse is equally true. The reverse should apply to someone who has been unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation. However we look at the tribunals, there is concern about the limits. These procedures have been unfair to those involved—sometimes to the employees, more often to the employers. We require to look at the whole range of ways in which unfair dismissal cases are being dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Not under this order.

Mr. Hayhoe

I believe that we should do that before we agree to the increase in the compensation limits.

Too many claims are made without reasonable justification, and small businesses are adversely affected by this legislation. I agree, of course, that this is not the time to debate these matters at length, but we believe that it would be wholly wrong to make provision for increases in the limits of compensation without a quick comment on some of the important matters involved. The parent legislation, the Employment Protection Act, has damaged employment prospects.

It has cost jobs. It has done damage to job opportunities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Be that as it may, it is not what we are discussing.

Mr. Hayhoe

We are discussing orders arising from that legislation. If the legislation did not exist, we should not be discussing them.

I listened to what the Minister said about the orders. I do not dismiss all his arguments out of hand. I believe that balance and judgment are needed in arriving at the appropriate decision. We think that the Government have the balance entirely wrong. We do not accept the Minister's judgment on these questions, and that is why we shall be voting against the orders.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

Perhaps I should start with a modest declaration of interest, in that I am at least nominally still a solicitor in private practice, and until recently—until the House began to take up all my time after my return at a by-election—I appeared fairly frequently before industrial tribunals in Scotland. If it is not finally destroying my credibility, I should admit that I was often instructed by trade unions.

I must confess that I find all the rage and fury about industrial tribunals and the workings of the Employment Protection Act rather synthetic. I say that because I find it only in the Chamber of the House. Moving around my part of the United Kingdom and talking to people on both sides of industry, I find that there are anxieties about this or that aspect, as there always will be about any major legislation. There will always be teething troubles. But I do not find the widespread feeling, almost of paranoia—I think that that is a fair word to use—that seems to breed on the Opposition Benches.

We are discussing a fairly modest but welcome provision. Apart from the fact that the rules of order make it difficult to pursue the argument that one dislikes some aspects of the Act and the industrial tribunal machinery, or indeed that one dislikes it entirely and would like to get rid of it lock, stock and barrel, I do not see why that should stop one from saying that while the legislation exists it should give the tribunals a reasonable limit of discretion in order to operate properly.

Given what has been happening to wage rates and conditions of employment, it is clear that in a small but important minority of cases the present limits are probably too low. No one expects that there will be a rash of judgments in unfair dismissal cases where the award will suddenly rise to the maximum of £5,750. I am sure that such awards will still be rare. But anyone who has tried to calculate what compensatory awards tribunals are likely to make, or has had to cost fringe benefits or a good employee pension scheme, will know that it is easy to reach the maximum figures quickly. They will still be a maximum after this modest order has been implemented.

The controversial Vauxhall case to which the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) referred seems to me to illustrate the need for the order and for the kind of increase in the unfair dismissal limits that is embodied in it.

I did not hear the evidence in the Vauxhall case, and I would not dream of discussing the merits of it, because I have had the misfortune to hear other people commenting on the merits of cases in which I have been involved when they have not heard the evidence and I have. The ability of any human being to get hold of the wrong end of the stick on the basis of press reports is almost limitless. I am not interested in the merits of that case, but we know that an award of about £7,000 was made. We know that £1,900 of that came because there had been a reinstatement order made by the tribunal which the firm, for reasons which appeared good to it, refused to implement. So, knocking that off, we are left with a cash award very near the maximum that a tribunal under the present regulations could make.

What is interesting, as I tried to point out in an intervention, is that the figure was calculated although the tribunal found that the applicant was 50 per cent. to blame for his own dismissal. In other words, if we take a hypothetical case in which a worker was wrongfully dismissed, with no excuse for the action of the employer and no contributory negligence on the part of the employee, when it came to the bones of compensation and to the clinical business of trying to compensate honestly and properly, clearly we would have ended up with a figure far, far in excess of the 5,200 which was the limit at the time that the tribunal was sitting.

I do not care what people think about courts or industrial tribunals. That is a much wider question. But I am clear that if a court or tribunal exists and operates under the law of the land and the end of the exercise is to produce proper and fair compensation on the basis of that law, it is ridiculous that there should be a limit imposed on what the court can award. We are, in effect, saying to a man"We have put into operation a law which will give you fair compensation for your loss and we have decided what that loss is, but, unfortunately, because of an artificial and arbitrary ceiling written in by Parliament, we can give you only half of the sum to which you are entitled."

If that principle applied in terms of personal injuries or any general principle of civil law in damages actions for, say, breach of contract, there would be considerable anxiety and disquiet about it. If a man has suffered injury and damage and an industrial tribunal has calculated that damage, it is a fair principle that that sum should be awarded to him. Indeed, if I have any reservations, it is that I should like to see the limit raised even higher, so that the tribunal's discretion to make a fair award could be even further unfettered.

My one surprise about the judgment in the Vauxhall case was that a reinstatement order was ever made. With a 50 per cent. contributory factor from the employee, it is surprising that there was a reinstatement order. Leaving that on one side, the lesson that I draw from it is that there is a need to raise these limits and to allow proper discretion and freedom of manoeuvre to the tribunal.

I do not want to labour this, but the same general principles apply to the redundancy payments. If the redundancy payments scheme were introduced on the basis of weekly pay, and if we have had a position since 1974 in which weekly pay has escalated, it is important that a modest effort should be made to keep pace with inflation.

I welcome these orders, recognising that they are modest. My limited, workaday experience in unspectacular cases that are not splashed across the headlines is that the system, on the whole, is welcomed and is working well. Certainly in Scotland it is not bogged down in legalisms, and I do not think that it is inflexible. I discovered from a Written Answer recently that in Scotland the average length of time for a case before a tribunal is less than three hours, and only 8 per cent.—as opposed to the very much higher figure of 20 per cent. in England—are adjourned to another day. That is perhaps some measure of the complexities that can arise.

I find that both employers and trade unions see tribunals as a useful way of settling individual grievances. I should like to see them used more. If individual grievances are settled in the course of a morning in a reasonably informal, commonsense atmosphere, it may persuade people that they do not need to walk off the job. Indeed, it may lead to industrial order, not anarchy.

If we manage to get more rationality, responsibility and order into everyday affairs on our industrial scene, because we have provided a proper, sensible and humane way of settling disputes, the balance in favour of the Employment Protection Act and of the industrial tribunal system will be substantial. As these orders provide extra leeway in the exceptional case to make an award to which someone is fairly entitled, I warmly welcome them. I am genuinely sorry that what seems to be spleen, general prejudice and a lot of hot air is leading Opposition Members to vote against these measures.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised the interesting general question of the working of industrial tribunals. It would be fascinating to follow him into that area, but I shall not do so. We and, I think, the whole country hope that industrial tribunals are working within the spirit of the Employment Protection Act 1975 which, in section 2 for instance, encourages the extension of collective bargaining and gives ACAS power to advise on how industrial relations might be improved within particular organisations. Indeed, there is a whole range of points in the Act which we hope industrial tribunals consider before reaching decisions. I shall return to that later.

When the Minister of State began his speech, I thought that he was going to do a re-run of what he said on 30th November last year in Committee. On that occasion, being conscious of the need to avoid any excessive costs which employers might have to endure, he said: The Government continue to give priority to the attack on inflation and unemployment. Additional costs to employers which might have to be passed on in higher prices must, therefore, be kept as low as possible. Moreover, the more an employer has to pay out in guarantee pay the greater the risk that he might be tempted to consider redundancies as an alternative. Later, he admitted that what the Government were proposing in 1977 called for additional costs to employers…to be kept to a minimum."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. & c., 30th November 1977; c. 5-7.] I wish that the hon. Gentleman had repeated that today, because the risks and the difficulties for employers 12 months on are just as great, if not greater. Indeed, the Manpower Services Commission report on the need to create a large number of additional net jobs if we are to bring unemployment down to the level of the early 1910s ought to have been restated vigorously by the Government tonight. The Government keep talking about a 5 per cent. pay limit for those who are at work, but they are here proposing a 10 per cent. increase for those who, unfortunately, might not be at work.

In the debate in the other place a week ago a number of speakers asked the Government about the short-time working scheme outlined in the Queen's Speech. No answer was given. The Government had three months during the Summer Recess in which to devise the Queen's Speech. Therefore, I think that we must again ask: what is the position about that proposed legislation? Are we to have early action from the Government?

I should like to raise another matter which was mentioned a week ago, namely, the additional costs to employers of any application to the Price Commission and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Lord Boyd Carpenter said in the other place: It will be quite unfair to put this additional load on employers without at least accepting that when applications are made for price increases the Price Commission and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Affairs would take it into account."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st November 1978; Vol. 396, c. 917.] There was no answer from the Minister who replied to that debate. I hope that we shall get an answer tonight, because it is another anxiety and worry for employers at a very difficult time.

I turn briefly to the question of unfair dismissal and the conditions which can trigger off an increased award. I refer first to what was said at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, as reported inThe Timeson 22nd February of this year. The report said: Employees must be aware of dismissal rules. This was a case involving Meyer Dumore International, an engineering company, of Willesden, London. The president of the employment appeal tribunal, Mr. Justice Phillips, said: Employers who intend to dismiss workers involved in shop-floor fights must make sure that everyone knows what will happen if one occurs. He said that a disciplinary code must be publicised within the company, that any internal inquiry must be fairly conducted and that an industrial tribunal might be expected to hold a dismissal following that to be fair. Mr. Justice Phillips went on to say: The company's disciplinary rules lacked clarity. It failed to consider any penalty short of dismissal. That is sound advice. That is the sort of thing that we were saying three years ago during the passage of the Employment Protection Bill. We spoke of the need for employers to get across new procedures, disciplinary codes, grievance procedures, and so on, that would stem from the measure. But without going into the details of the Vauxhall case—it was inevitable that it would be raised in an oblique form; it was raised a week ago and it has been raised again today —there are certain things to which I should like the Government to turn their attention on the question of what can trigger an industrial tribunal and an award.

For instance, are the Government satisfied that before an industrial tribunal wades in with an award agreed grievances and disputes procedures have been satisfactorily carried out within the company? One hopes that they have been, but this is something about which the Government and the ACAS ought to say something more, because if agreed grievance procedures and disputes procedures have been bypassed that should be taken into account by the industrial tribunal.

Secondly, if a company and the trade unions have a 100 per cent. union shop agreement, if there is an internal procedure for dealing with grievances, if there is official union recognition, if there is a closed shop and if there is a 100 per cent. union agreement, what is the position where the union declines to contest the case yet an individual goes to an industrial tribunal?

Mr. Rooker

As the hon. Member has come back to the Vauxhall case, will he say whether the criterion of people falling asleep on the job applies to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) who for the last 10 minutes has not been able to keep awake? Is it because the hon. Gentleman is a member of this club and white that no one will mention it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. At least it is not the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that all hon. Members are awake.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West)

A sum of £7,000 would not pay for the Moss Brothers hirings of the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke).

Mr. Madel

The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) is making a noise. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) must have been watching me. I was studying my documents carefully. I cannot possibly comment on that.

If there is a 100 per cent. union agreement, and if the official trade union line is not to contest a dismissal, what do the Government think when there is a grievance procedure and a disputes procedure and the official trade union attitude is not to proceed with it and the whole matter is bypassed and taken to an industrial tribunal by an individual?

These are very important questions. When one mentions industrial tribunals, at the slightest whiff of criticism the Minister of State gets upset. He must, surely, realise that controversial cases will be raised in an oblique form in the House. Three years after—

Mr. Harold Walker

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me why the House does not see fit to debate every controversial magistrates' court decision and why it is that it is just the industrial tribunals within the whole judicial system that are selected for nitpicking and raking over in the House in this fashion?

Mr. Madel

With respect, the Minister of State is wrong. It is not nitpicking. Very often the awards made and the arguments put forward at industrial tribunals stem from what happened three years ago in the Employment Protection Act. If we support the law that provides that there should be an improvement in industrial relations and an extension of collective bargaining and it can be shown in a particular case that that has not happened, inevitably the matter will come up in the House. The Minister has been here long enough to know that any form of industrial dispute, once it bursts upon the newspapers for any length of time, is pushed around the House because in nearly all cases it is considered a relevant subject for debate.

The Government ought to look carefully at the Employment Protection Act and all its workings. There is still time to do it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That may well be so, but not under this order.

Mr. Madel

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the Government go any further in putting forward these increases they should see how their pay policy is going. Last year they linked the increase to pay policy. If they are to be logical, the increase this year should be 5 per cent.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

I ought to put on record the position of myself and my colleagues about these orders.

There is some concern about such things as industrial tribunals and the Employment Protection Act. But I have never heard the official Opposition say that they believe that the Act should be repealed. If it is not to be repealed, I am not sure which parts they will alter, which parts they will leave in, and so on.

Perhaps at some time there will be an opportunity for us to discover what is wrong with the Act and where it needs to be put right. I certainly do not subscribe to the view, as I have said over the past three weeks, that the Act is having the damaging effect on employment that the official Opposition claim. There are worries about it and perhaps in the future we could look at those.

I and my colleagues are concerned to ensure that if employees are made redundant they are entitled to proper payment. That situation has arisen in my constituency in the last three days where another textile mill is closing with 280 people being declared redundant. it is no good my saying to those people that the payment they will receive this year is the same as they would have received two years ago. Benefits have increased in that period, and therefore these benefits must increase, too.

I shall support the Government on these orders tonight. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who are present will do the same. I am prepared to bet that a greater percentage of my party than the official Opposition will vote tonight. While we feel less concern about the Act, about industrial tribunals, and so on, we believe that it is right to increase the amount as provided by the orders. We do not believe that the concern that is felt generally about the Act is sufficient reason to deprive employees of proper payment.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

May I seek clarification from you. Mr. Deputy Speaker? We are discussing two orders. We may be discussing them together, but are we entitled to one and a half hours for each order, or to one and a half hours for the full debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It was announced by Mr. Speaker at the outset that both orders are being taken together.

Mr. Prior

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was asleep as usual.

Mr. Rooker

I have not finished dealing with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).

I heard what Mr. Speaker said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we are debating the orders together, but they appear separately on the Order Paper.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The result of Mr. Speaker's announcement is that there is only one and a half hours to debate both orders.

Mr. Rooker

Well, that is 30 seconds up the spout, but at least I have the point clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Mr. Speaker put that matter to the House and it was agreed.

Mr. Rooker

I am not arguing about it. I was seeking clarification because time is getting on and there is a lot to say.

I support the orders, which may come as a surprise. It is imperative that compensation for redundancy should move roughly in line with wages, prices or the cost of living. The Opposition do not agree with that, and tonight they will vote against increased redundancy pay. One would think from listening to the Tories that the Labour Government had been responsible for introducing the unfair dismissal legislation. It is clear that the Tories deeply regret what they did in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, when they put in a sweetener, by way of the unfair dismissal provisions, to catch the trade unions on the rest of the Act. That is the one part of their Act that survived. That sticks in their gullets, as has been shown again tonight.

We heard a very dishonest speech from the spokesman for the Tory Party—the hon. Member for Brantford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe}—when he concentrated on one example. He did not tell us about the other cases in his file. He could have told us, for instance, that in 1977 only 13 cases out of 3,000 were settled for over £5,000. He did not tell us that in 30 per cent. of cases the award is less than £200. These are the nuts and bolts of unfair dismissal compensation. The May issue of theDepartment of Employment Gazette, giving the analysis of figures for 1977, specifically states that in 1977 more than half the awards made by industrial tribunals were for less than £400 and just under two-thirds of awards were for less than £500. Less than 2 per cent of awards were over £3,000. That is the scale of the problem, yet the Tories pick on one case, without knowing the facts, to thrash the whole system.

It is well known that there were others at the Vauxhall plant who had been faced with similar circumstances. It is well known that in many factories, given the different payment systems operating, people cannot leave after they have finished their work quota. There have been arguments about that at British Leyland, Birmingham. The men say"We have finished our work quota. Why should we stay in the factory? ". Nevertheless, the person in question had finished his work quota and it seemed that because he was black he was not taken back.

If a reinstatement order is made and a person is not taken back, that can increase the award. We should aim at increasing the number who are reinstated. A bundle of money—whatever the amount—is not the same as a job. The money will not last. The money is a stigma to some people: they have no self-respect, because they cannot go to work—[Interruption] Some Tory Members have just come in from the bars. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) knows nothing about a real job of work. He has never put his hand to a real day's work in his life. He laughs and sniggers when I talk about people who have been dismissed and who do not want compensation but who want their job back. This can sometimes increase the compensation.

In 1977, only 102 out of 3,900 successful cases won reinstatement following a tribunal hearing. That was 0.3 per cent. of all unfair dismissal applications. The number who won re-engagement amounted to only 0.2 per cent. We should aim for reinstatement and re-engagement, and not necessarily for compensation, which is not always practical. I know from my experience on both sides of industry that if some of those who have been dismissed were taken back that would result in the firm losing all its other employees. However, there are occasions on which it would be practicable to take people back, but it happens to an insufficient degree. We must, therefore, compensate to a greater extent those who, but for the firm's refusal to accept them, could have had their jobs back. Perhaps this arises from personality clashes. There are many reasons why people can be refused reemployment, having been successful before a tribunal.

That raises another question. It is first necessary to succeed in getting before a tribunal. Only 36 per cent. of applicants succeed and 64 per cent. do not. A total of 36 per cent. of the cases heard by tribunals were successful. A great deal must be got over before one even begins to talk of compensation. As the firm often brings along slick lawyers, while the trade union officials have other jobs to do, there are many problems that workers have to overcome even to win a case of unfair dismissal. Because of all the barriers, we should not complain when the Government come forward with proposals to put this matter on a regular basis by operating the limits.

From 1971 to 1974—I stand to be corrected because I am speaking from memory—the Conservative Government never operated the limits for redundancy pay or unfair dismissal. They never brought an order to the House to raise those limits. They were first raised in the middle of 1974, just after Labour took office. Therefore, in those Tory years compensation for unfair dismissal was allowed to fall. It was cut in half in real terms. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has already emphasised this point. How can the hon. Gentleman go to his constituents now and say"You may now have what you would have been paid two years ago "? This is a ludicrous situation, and his constituents would be most annoyed if he were to say that.

The Tory Party's record on this matter is not good, nor indeed is it very good on employment protection in general. The fact that the Tories intend to vote against increasing redundancy payments and compensation for unfair dismissal for people at the bottom end of the scale—thousands of people who will receive payments of only £200, £300 or £400—shows their attitude. I do not know how they have the effrontery to force a vote on this order. The Tories came to this House wanting, by implication, to increase unemployment. That is what happens in the operation of market forces. Firms will be allowed to collapse and others will grow in the ashes of the old firms. That is the view of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Oppo- sition, and we know that it is rubbish, as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) admits.

If the Tories want to allow that to happen, what do they intend to do for those who will be put out of work because of the operation of their policies? We now know. They will never again increase the compensation limits for unfair dismissal or redundancy payments, and there is every indication that if the Tories ever gain power again they will tinker with the Employment Protection Act and probably abolish some of the unfair dismissal provisions. It is well known that no worker can make a claim for unfair dismissal until he has worked for a firm for six months. The period was two years when the scheme was introduced. What we did—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. None of that occurred under this order.

Mr. Rooker

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it does arise here because a worker cannot have the benefit of these new limits unless he can put forward a claim for unfair dismissal, and he cannot do so unless he has worked for a firm for six months. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that the period used to be two years and is now six months. That has meant more claims.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. None of that arises from the matter that is before the House tonight.

Mr. Rooker

If more people make claims and win awards, that will increase the total amount of money paid out to them. As we are to raise the basic limits of compensation, that will add to the figure even more. The number of people who will share these increased benefits is relevant in respect of the redundancy payments fund. I accept that my point went a little wide, but it is fair to look at the pool of money that one is using to pay compensation, because under this order the pool will be increased by about 10 per cent.

As a result of the reduction from two years to six months the case load increased. However, the case load between 1976 and 1977 hardly increased. It increased from 33,700 to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That cannot arise under the order.

Mr. Rooker

No, it cannot. However, it is highly likely that between 1978 and 1979 the number of claims for unfair dismissal procedures will be no higher than in 1977. That is because there has been a smoothing out of the system. The campaign that Conservatives have run outside the House against unfair dismissal compensation will not apply any more. The system has levelled out and it should work smoothly. I support the orders.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

The Government seek the approval of the House for an increase in the limits by approximately 10 per cent. We shall not support them because they have failed to make out a case for that 10 per cent. increase.

The arguments put forward by the Minister of State were not clearly related to the criterion specified in the Act. The hon. Gentleman talked of the general level of earnings increases obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review and said that that was about 14 per cent. He seemed to say that 14 per cent. was rather high and that we should settle for 10 per cent. That is no argument.

The Government, as they know well, are not bound by the general level of earnings. There are two other important criteria that are set out in the Act. The first criterion is the national economic situation and the second is such other matters as are thought relevant. In other words, the Government are entitled to take, and are bound to take, a broad view of what is appropriate to be done in a situation of the sort that we now face. By increasing the limits the Government are increasing costs that are not absolutely the same as wage costs for employers but must, at the very least, be related and analogous to wage costs.

It is reasonable to ask the Government how they relate 10 per cent. to the incomes policy that they are operating. As far as we know, in spite of all the buffetings that that policy has experienced—I am not trying to make fun of it—it still stands at 5 per cent. Some of us may have doubts about the viability of that policy, and others may have doubts about its desirability, but it remains the Government's commitment. At the most, and allowing for a little give and take, the Government are aspiring to a 7½ per cent. earnings increase. If anybody goes above that he runs the risk of being clobbered, as Ford has been today.

If that is the sort of increase in wage costs that the Government are hoping to achieve, whatever our reservations about the feasibility or desirability of that may be, it is reasonable to ask the Minister how he relates that aspiration to an increase in these wage-related costs of 10 per cent. It is because the Government have totally failed to offer even a sliver of an argument on that score that I shall continue to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the increase.

Other matters have been raised. Hon. Members have talked about the total amount of compensation available for unfair dismissal. We were told that it was unfair to refer the Vauxhall example because that is untypical. We were told that in the majority of instances a few hundred pounds are in question rather than a few thousand as in the more dramatic examples. That is true.

Unfortunately for the Government, that argument cuts both ways. In 1977 there were 35,389 cases, of which only eight secured the maximum award of £5,200. I have not worked out the percentage, but it seems that eight out of 35,389 is a minute proportion. If that is the number which actually secured the maximum award after a tribunal hearing, it does not seem to make much of a case for saying that that maximum is inadequate to provide the compensation that ought to be given in cases of this kind.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raised an objection to there being limits at all. I can understand that. But if there are to be limits, in considering whether they should be increased one has to ask whether there is a significant number of cases in which the limits currently operating prevent fair compensation being given to those who come before the tribunals. It is clear from the figures I have given that no case can be made today for the substantial inadequacy of that maximum figure and for that figure rendering any sort of injustice to any significant number of people.

The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked a more general question. He found it doubtful whether there was anyone except those on the Floor of the House of Commons who was concerned about the operation of the Employment Protection Act. I do not believe that if the hon. Gentleman, with his customary standards of fairness, were to draw an even reasonable trawl through employers, especially small employers, he would be able to speak to more than a handful of gatherings before he found deep dissatisfaction over the way in which the Act is operating.

It does not follow from that that we are in favour of the repeal of the Act. We have made it clear that we are not. If we have reservations about the way in which the Act is operating, it is entirely logical and reasonable for us to make the point that until those fears are allayed, until those anxieties are quietened, until the changes are made that seem desirable, it would be wrong to operate the increases which the Government are asking for, particularly as they have lamentably and totally failed to relate those increases in any way to their incomes policy, based as it is upon the figure of 5 per cent.—or at most 7 per cent. They have come, instead, to the House to present a totally unconvincing argument for a 10 per cent. across the board increase. For those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose these orders.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker

I am touched by the concern of the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) for the Government's 5 per cent. pay policy, particularly since the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friends have spent a substantial part of the afternoon denouncing the Government for trying to enforce their 5 per cent. policy and have encouraged a wholly inflationary settlement at Ford.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) argued, among other things, that the increase in the limits for unfair dismissal compensation would provoke the Opposition to vote against the orders because the increase represented an unfair and heavy burden on employers. It was left to the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby to stand that argument on its head at the end of the debate by saying that because tribunals rarely, if ever, award the maximum there is no point in raising the limits. That was an extra- ordinary and convoluted argument for voting against the orders.

The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to make a great point about there being three broad sets of considerations to be taken into account by my right hon. Friend, along with two other considerations and the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review. He obviously did not listen to my opening speech. He echoed and went over precisely the same ground. I do not know whether he was with us when we debated the last orders almost exactly 12 months ago.

The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) referred to the record of our Committee proceedings at that time and quoted from it. He might have helped himself and the House had he looked at what I said. I stated: In reviewing these limits, the first of the three factors which must be taken into account is the general level of earnings and so on. Then I said: It is the year-on-year increases in the general level of earnings which is, of course, most relevant in the context of an annual review of the guarantee pay limits."—[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c., 30th November 1977, c. 4.] I made it abundantly clear that the 10 per cent. chosen last year had nothing to do with the Government's pay limits, that it was a pure coincidence. The policy that I showed then to be the basis of our determination has to be consistent to be the same this year. It is a question of looking back over the period at what has happened to pay, on a year-to-year consideration. It is a waste of time for me to have to explain yet again to Opposition Members what I have already explained.

I turn now to a point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby about the size of the redundancy fund. I have some sympathy with them. It is a fact that the amount in the fund is too high. We are looking carefully at the level of rebates, and we are looking also at the new scheme of short-time working that will be introduced by a Bill and the way in which we shall be financing that. I think that because we now have an allocation out of national insurance contributions towards employment protection legislation we shall want to look carefully at how the funding arrangements will fit in with that employment protection allocation and how it is distributed between what will then be three funds—the maternity fund, the redundancy fund and the funding for the short-time working scheme. We shall be looking very carefully at the level of the redundancy fund and at the level of contributions in the context of the total employment protection allocation. I hope that the Conservative Members will find that a not unsympathetic response to what 1 think was a fair point.

I turn finally to one other matter. Intemperate and irresponsible attacks were made by Opposition Members on the industrial tribunals. If Labour Members from time to time criticise the judiciary and our judicial system that provokes howls of wrath from Opposition Mem-

Division No.6] AYES [11.59 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Flannery, Martin Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Anderson, Donald Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Armstrong, Ernest Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) Ford, Ben Morton, George
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Forrester, John Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Bates, Alt Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Beith, A. J. Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Noble, Mike
Benn, Rt Kon Anthony Wedgwood George Bruce Oakes, Gordon
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Orbach, Maurice
Boardman, H. Golding, John Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Booth, Rt Kon Albert Gourlay, Harry Park, George
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Grant, George (Morpeth) Pavitt, Laurie
Bradley, Tom Grant, John (Islington C) Penhaligon, David
Braine, Sir Bernard Grocott, Bruce Radice, Giles
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Hardy, Peter Richardson, Miss Jo
Buchanan, Richard Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Home Robertson, John Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Campbell, Ian Hooley, Frank Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Canavan, Dennis Horam, John Rooker, J. W.
Carmichael, Neil Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Clemitson, Ivor Huckfield, Les Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)
Cocks, Rt Kon Michael (Bristol S) Hunter, Adam Rowlands, Ted
Cohen stanly Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Sandelson, Neville
Coleman, Donald Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Sedgemore, Brian
Concannon, Rt Hon John John, Brynmor Sever, John
Conlan, Bernard Johnson James (Hull West) Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Cook, Robin F.(Edin.C) Johnson, walter(Derby S) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Corbett, Rabin jonnson,Alec(Rhondda) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cowans, Harry Jones Barry(East filnt) Silverman, Julius
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Skinner, Dennis
Craigen, Jim(Maryhill) Lamborn, harry Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Crawshaw, Richard Lamond james Snape, Peter
Crowther, stan (Rotherham) Leadbitter,Ted Spearing, Nigel
Cryer, Bob Lestor, miss john(Elon & Slough) Sprigs, Leslie
Cunningham,G. (Islingtom S) Lewis Ron(carlisle) Stallard, A. W.
Steel, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Arthur Litterick, Tom Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Loyden, Eddie Stott, Roger
Deakins, Eric Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Strang, Gavin
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Dempsey, James McElhone, Frank Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dewar, Donald McGuire, Michael (Ince) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Doig, Peter McKay, Alan (Penlstone) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Dormand, J. D. MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Urwln, T. W.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Duffy, A. E. P. McNamara, Kevin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Eadie, Alex Mallalieu, J. P. W. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Marks, Kenneth Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Watkins, David
Evans, John (Newton) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Watklnson, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Maynard, Miss Joan Weetch, Ken
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Mikardo, Ian White, Frank R. (Bury)

bers, yet they do not hesitate, without consideration and without thinking of the effect on the industrial tribunals, to make irresponsible attacks against them on the basis of newspaper reports which are written for the sake of sensationalism rather than with a cold assessment of the facts. I urge Opposition Members to have concern for the effect that they are having on our industrial tribunal system and to behave in a rather more responsible fashion when they seek to pull apart, as they do, some of the decisions of industrial tribunals.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion,Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERput the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House Divided: Ayes 166, Noes 159.

White, James (Pollok) Woodall, Alec
Whitehead, Philip Woof, Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Whitlock, William Wrlgglesworfh, Ian Mr. Ted Graham and
Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W) Young, David (Bolton E) Mr. James Tinn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
NOES
Adley, Robert Hannam, John Neubert, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Newton, Tony
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hayhoe, Barney Normanton, Tom
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) Heseltine, Michael Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel Hicks, Robert Page, Richard (Workington)
Baker, Kenneth Hlgglns, Terence L. Pattie, Geoffrey
Banks, Robert Hodgson, Robin Percival, Ian
Bendall, Vivian Holland, Philip Pink, R. Bonner
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Horam, John Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Benyon, W. Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Biffen, John Hurd, Douglas Prior, Rt Hon James
Blaker, Peter James, David Ralson, Timothy
Body, Richard Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) Rathbone, Tim
Boscawen, Hon Robert Jessel, Toby Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Bottomley, Peter Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Brlttan, Leon Jopling, Michael Rhodes James, R.
Brooke, Hon Peter Kaberry, Sir Donald Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Kershaw, Anthony Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Buck, Antony Kimball, Marcus Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Budgen, Nick King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Bulmer, Esmond King, Tom (Bridgwater) Sainsbury, Tim
Carlisle, Mark Knox, David Scott, Nicholas
Channon, Paul Lamont, Norman Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Churchill, W. S. Langford-Holt, Sir John Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Lawrence, Ivan Shepherd, Colin
Clark, William (Croydon S) Le Marchant, Spencer Sims, Roger
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sinclair, Sir George
Clegg, Walter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Loveridge, John Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)
Cope, John Luce, Richard Speed, Keith
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Macfarlane, Neil Spence, John
Dodsworlh, Geoffrey MacGregor, John Sproat, lain
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Stainton, Keith
Drayson, Burnaby McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Stanbrook, Ivor
Durant, Tony Madel, David Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stradllng Thomas, J.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Marten, Nell Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Emery, Peter Mates, Michael Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Eyre, Reginald Mather, Carol Tebblt, Norman
Falrbairn, Nicholas Maxwell-Kyslop, Robin Temple-Morris, Peter
Falrgrieve, Russell Meyer, Sir Anthony Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Farr, John Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Townsend, Cyril D.
Finsberg, Geoffrey Miscampbell, Norman Vlggers, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel Mitchell, David (Basingstoka) Wakeham, John
Fookes, Miss Janet Moalo, Roger Warren, Kenneth
Forman, Nigel Monro, Hector Weatherill, Bernard
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'l'd) Montgomery, Fergus Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Gardiner, George (Relgate) Moore, John (Croydon C) Whitney, Raymond
Glyn, Dr Alan Morgan, Geraint Winterton, Nicholas
Gorst, John Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Younger, Hon George
Grist, Ian Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell) Neave, Airey Mr. Anthony Berry and
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Nelson, Anthony Sir George Young.
Hampson, Dr Keith

Question accordingly agreed to

Resolved,

That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

Resolved,

That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.—[Mr. Harold Walker]

Forward to