PICKETING

HC Deb 30 April 1980 vol 983 cc1457-99

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 16, leave out from ' (1) ' to end of line 2 on page 18, and insert— ' It shall be lawful for not more than six persons in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend at or near any place where another person happens to be not being a place where he resides for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working. (2) for the purpose of such peaceful picketing it shall be lawful for such person or persons to obstruct the passage of vehicles for no longer than is necessary to communicate with the occupants of the vehicle.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 107, in page 17, line 26, at end insert: ' provided that the numbers of persons in attendance for such purposes shall not be so many as to intimidate by their presence any other person or to constitute a physical barrier to the lawful movement into or out of any premises where there is or may be a trade dispute of anyone who has lawful business to be there; or to create a breach of the peace '.

No. 19, in page 17, line 40, at end insert— ' (2) Nothing in this section shall affect existing immunities from criminal prosecution.'.

No. 114, in page 17, line 40, after ' work ', insert— ' (4) For the purpose of allowing persons to peacefully communicate and persuade it shall be lawful for the police, at the request of a person attending as provided for in subsection (1) above, to stop any vehicle leaving or entering the place of work.'.

Mr. Lyon

We come now to the important provision relating to picketing. This part of the Bill causes the greatest concern. There are parts of the Bill which I find squalid, such as the maternity benefit. Somewhere, on balance, the judgment might find favour with the Government. But on this matter there is a clear division of opinion. I find the provision about picketing very suspect.

What concerns me most is the matter that I have raised in amendment No. 19. My concern in amendment No. 18 is to ventilate and discuss the issue. I do not intend to press the matter. But amendment No. 19 is at the very crux of the dispute that I have been having with the Secretary of State since Second Reading. I feel that there is considerable danger for the future implicit in the wording of clause 15—a danger which so far the Secretary of State has not accepted. However, as I shall seek to indicate, the Attorney-General seems to agree with me.

First, I should put the matter in context. The right to strike is an inevitable part of a free society. If we were forced to go to work against our will, it would be a slave society. We pride ourselves on the right to strike. But the right to strike would be an empty charade if there were not also the concomitant right to picket.

The argument that is going on about clause 15 concerns how extensive the right to picket should be. The Government accept that there should be a right to picket one's own place of work. The question is whether it should go further.

There is some ambiguity in the present position on the Bill since the Government have outlawed secondary action outside the first customer's premises. Yet, it is not possible within the context of clause 15, as drafted, to picket the first customer's premises. That seems a little odd. It suggests that the Minister has some difficulty in combining all the factors which have been in his mind in trying to limit the right both to secondary picketing and secondary action.

What ought to be clear now, after all the discussion, is that the right to picket did not have any particular geographical restraint before the introduction of the Bill. The so-called secondary picketing, which has caused so much concern in the past 12 months or so, was a phrase which came into being only in that period of approximately 18 months. Before that it had always been accepted that people could picket places other than their place of work if that seemed to be a proper exercise of the power in furtherance of a trade dispute. For many good reasons, into which I shall not go now, there are reasonable grounds for accepting that it is in furtherance of a trade dispute to picket somewhere other than one's place of work.

The right to picket has never been drafted in English law as a right. Indeed, very few of our rights are drafted as positive rights. We are entitled to do anything that we are not prevented from doing by law. The right to picket has been a statutory immunity since 1906. It is an immunity from prosecution or from civil suit in relation to the activity that one is pursuing. It has been so drafted in all legislation since 1906 until this Bill. Indeed, in this Bill it is declared to be lawful to do something which otherwise might be unlawful.

In the leading case of Hunt v. Broome in the House of Lords, Lord Salmon said that but for the appropriate section which was being considered at that time The mere attendance of pickets might constitute an offence under... the Act of 1875 or under the Highways Act 1959, or constitute a tort, for example, a nuisance. Therefore, the section gives a narrow, but nevertheless, real immunity to pickets. Clearly, it does no more. I had always understood the law to be so, until I heard the Secretary of State claim on Second Reading that there was no such thing as immunity from criminal prosecution under the preceding law, because it was not unlawful to picket peacefully.

The House must be clear as to what is lawful and what is unlawful. The immunity has never extended beyond the right to persuade others peacefully of the justice of a cause. A person is not entitled to use violence or unlawful intimidation. The gathering of a great number of people designed to intimidate by fear, is unlawful, and always has been unlawful. The only question is whether it is possible for the police to enforce such legality in the presence of hundreds of people. That is a difficulty of enforcement.

The chief constables told the Select Committee that there is no reason why there should be any further law on picketing because there is no doubt about what is unlawful. It is lawful to attend a gathering and to try to persuade a person who wishes to move across a picket line that it would be wrong for him to do so, and in doing so a person can use expressions which would help him to persuade the other person, and which might indicate that if he were to enter the factory he would lose his union card. That is not unlawful intimidation. As that is all that is permitted by picketing, I am surprised that the Government have included this clause. They simply want to try to cut down the area of picketing because it is thought that secondary picketing has led to an abuse by creating situations of potential violence.

Amendment No. 18 relates to a more desirable way of proceeding. When I was a Minister at the Home Office in 1974 I sought to persuade the then Government that this was a better approach. If the number of pickets outside a place of work was limited to no more than six, and those pickets were then given the right—in the sense of a legal immunity—to stop a vehicle from crossing the picket line for long enough to speak to the driver and seek to persuade him, that would be a proper balance of interest. The picketing law is no more than a balance of interest between those who are on strike and those who are not. That balance of interest would avoid any possible conflict, because wherever picketing has been limited to very small numbers there has been very little evidence of any abuse of that right. For that reason, I have tabled amendment No. 18. I know that it will not carry conviction with this Government, any more than it caried conviction with my Government, because the police and the trade unions are opposed to it for various reasons. Both are wrong, and in time they will learn that it will be wise to adopt this practice.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has in mind? He is contemplating six people standing on a picket line, and those persons being protected by the provisions in these amendments. If one other person joins, bringing the total to seven, will they all lose their statutory protection, or will only the most recent arrival lose his protection?

7.15 pm

Mr. Lyon

The police would have the right to reduce the number to six, and they would be entitled to tell the pickets that only persons who were there by authority of the union should be included in the picket line. Those persons would have immunity, because they were authorised, and the others would not. The detail will need further discussion. In my view, the adoption of these amendments is the right way to proceed. The Government have not proceeded in that way. They have said that secondary picketing is so wrong that they will stop people from picketing anywhere else but outside their place of work. However, they do not want a confrontation with the unions, because that would lead to people being sent to prison—and we are all conscious of what happened in 1971.

The trouble with the Government's solution is that they are potentially putting themselves in that position. On Second Reading, the Labour Front Bench tried to warn the Government of that position, and the Minister claimed forcefully that we were wrong. I wrote to the Minister, and it became clear, through an exchange of letters, that there is a fair difference of opinion between his legal advice and my view of the law. The legal advice given to the Minister is that it is not unlawful for a person to stand in the highway, provided that his standing there is not regarded as an unreasonable use of the highway. My view is that to stand in the highway is potentially a breach of the law, because it is potentially an obstruction. If the police ask that person to move on, he must move on.

When the chief officers of police gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs I asked them whether that was their view of the law. It was. It is clear from subsequent interventions by the Attorney-General in Committee, and in a statement in February, that he takes my view. I am happy to have his assurance that I was right, but perhaps we are both wrong, and perhaps we have both misunderstood the law.

I am simply saying that there is potential doubt. If the Attorney-General and I are right, there is an immunity from prosecution for obstruction, or for failing to obey the instruction of a police officer to move on. That is a narrow, but important, immunity. If the pickets picket peacefully and a policeman tells them to move on, and they do not move on because they have a right to stay, that is a potential source of conflict and possible violence. It is essential that both sides should know their rights in that situation.

The Secretary of State says that that is merely a triviality. What would happen in a heated situation outside the factory gates where a person who was not employed there said that he was picketing as he had always picketed, and the Secretary of State said that no police officer could deal with the situation and that an action would have to be brought before the Divisional Court? What would happen if a policeman told that person that he was not employed at the factory and that he must move on? If the person said that he would not move on and was prosecuted, a very dangerous industrial situation might follow. The incident may be trivial. It may be brought up at the local magistrates court, but it may lead to another dockers' situation in which the country is brought to a standstill because the Secretary of State has got it wrong.

By amendment No. 19 I seek to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to confirm the meaning of clause 15. All it says is: Nothing in the section shall affect existing immunities from criminal prosecution ". That is what he says the clause means. He has been telling his Back Benchers and the trade unions from the beginning that this has no effect upon the criminal law and will not cause any further arrests, and that the police have no greater powers under it than they had before.

I say—and to some extent the Attorney-General agrees with me—" Yes, they do, because you have taken away the criminal immunity in relation to those who are secondary pickets in the sense defined in the clause—those who are not employed at that place of work ". Those people can be moved on, and they will think that they need not be moved on because they have heard what the Secretary of State says. I appeal to him as a reasonable person. Surely it does no harm to the principle of his Bill. If he accepts the amendment, it will only confirm what he says about the Bill. I should have thought that there could be no real dispute between us about it.

I shall not enlarge on the other amendments, because time is pressing, but this is a matter of fundamental importance and is potentially of considerable danger. I hope that the Minister will agree.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I hope that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument on his amendment. As my own amendment is grouped with his, I shall speak to it at once.

This in no sense a hostile or a rebel amendment; on the contrary, I trust that it is a friendly and amicable one. I do not agree with the whole of my right hon. Friend's approach to the Bill, but I agree with nearly all of it. I am grateful to him for having, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, courteously received the Police Federation—in which I declare an interest—to discuss my amendment.

In terms of its general drive and purpose I believe that my amendment is absolutely consistent with the manifesto of the Conservative Party at the last general election and with all the related statements on party policy by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend, on which all of us on the Government Benches fought and won that election. I also believe that it expresses, as far as I have been able to discover, not only the views and the hopes of the very large number of people who voted for a change of Government precisely because they wanted—as they still want—an end to violent picketing; I believe that it expresses what this large number of people and the public generally are fully entitled to expect, and do expect, from this Government.

I need not upset the House by raking over the ugly scenes of mass picketing that disfigured the face of industrial Britain during the winter of discontent. We all recall it vividly. I start instead with a quotation from today's issue of The Guardian, which describes what is now happening outside the offices of the Express and Star newspaper in Wolverhampton. I quote the report of Mr. Paul Johnson—not, I should have thought, a particular union basher. [Interruption.] He may have seen the light, but I would not have called him that. He says: Sixteen print workers were arrested yesterday when 300 pickets clashed with the police... National Graphical Association members drafted in from Liverpool, Cardiff, Chester and Bristol were trying to prevent vans laden with newspapers from leaving the offices. The pickets were held in check by about 150 policemen and the vans were escorted out after a street strewn with metal tacks had been cleared. I do not think that anyone in the House—certainly not the hon. Member for York—could possibly describe that as peaceful picketing in the terms of the clause that we are now discussing.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. Gentleman pointed out that some at least of those who were involved in these matters had been arrested; therefore the present law empowered the police to act against them. Presumably, those who did it did so in defiance of the present law. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me in what respect changing the law is likely to deter them any more in the future than the present law has done? If the law at present is able to make provision for their arrest, why is it necessary to change the law, when the powers required by the police seem to be in existence already?

Mr. Griffiths

The right hon. Gentleman, for whose knowledge of these matters I have a good deal of respect, is exactly 10 minutes too early, because I shall get to that point at the end of my speech.

The incident at Wolverhampton goes to the heart of the amendment, because it raises the question whether sheer numbers create a problem. I believe that they do, and I cite to start with the evidence given to the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for York is a member, by the chief police officer. I shall draw the factual matter from their statements.

In the case of the Saltley affair of some years ago, they told the Committee that 800 police officers were employed to control upwards of 15,000 pickets and demonstrators.

In the case of Hadfields, they said that on 14 February 1980 it was estimated that 1,500 ' pickets ' were present in the Vulcan Road area and 680 police officers were deployed to contain the situation. The report of the Select Committee went on to state that in the case of Grunwick Between 13 June and 7 November there were 51 days in which large-scale picketing occurred. The total number of pickets during this period was estimated at 52,000; the largest number on any single day was 20,000... During this period 37,000 police were employed... 347 injuries to police were recorded and 17 to members of the public. I do not think, on this evidence, that there can be any doubt that numbers are a problem. I do not think that there can be any doubt, either, about the public's deep concern about numbers. I need not go into the question of the election campaign, but there is no doubt on the Conservative Benches that there was real public anger about the impact of numbers on the picket line.

Lest there be any doubt about this, let us consider what happened in the House. At the height of the Grunwick affair there were exchanges in the House—I shall not detain it with quotations—when both the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister, both the former Home Secretary and the present Home Secretary, and both the former Secretary of State for Employment and the present Secretary of State for Employment, all agreed on one thing, namely, that numbers can intimidate and that numbers do obstruct.

The former Prime Minister said: those who latch on to this in order to turn an industrial dispute into a political battle—[HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."]—that applies to the National Association for Freedom as well as to the International Socialists—can be kept clear of this industrial dispute... the situation is getting extremely serious."— [Official Report, 23 June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 1735.]

7.30 pm

I can fairly summarise those exchanges by referring to a report of the political editor of The Times, who wrote this: Mr. Callaghan in the Commons made no attempt to conceal the Labour Cabinet's deep anxieties about the demonstrations outside the Grunwick factory. Senior Ministers are profoundly disturbed about the impression created at home and abroad by television reports showing day after day fighting between large numbers of demonstrators and the police. All hon. Members, all political parties and the British public as a whole, share my concern about numbers. That is right, so what do we do about it? We are pledged to do something about it.

The Police Federation originally proposed a specific limit. It proposed that the number of those on any one picket line should be confined to six. It then thought that it might be better to limit the numbers in a single dispute to 50. But in the case of large and complex firms, six is not enough. Fifty may not be enough. It is unrealistic to suggest any specific limit, because circumstances vary enormously between one firm and another.

The police then considered whether a limit should be placed on the proportion of the work force involved in picketing. They suggested a limit of 5 per cent., but again, I rejected that notion. It was—and is—wholly impracticable. One would find, for example, that 5 per cent. of the work force of British Leyland or Ford was an entirely different thing to 5 per cent. of the work force of a small firm that employed only 40 workers. In addition, such a suggestion would place the police and shop stewards in great difficulty. They would have to determine whether 5 per cent. meant 5 per cent. of the total work force or 5 per cent. of the work force at a particular branch or plant, or 5 per cent. of the union in dispute. For those practical reasons, the Police Federation dropped its suggestion for an absolute or proportional limit. I think that that was wise.

Mr. Leighton

Presumably, the Police Federation is a different body from that of chief constables. The hon. Gentleman quoted from The Times. I have a copy of The Times of 21 February. In that copy five chief constables gave evidence. They stated: The police are happy with the existing law as it affects picketing and do not want any extra powers, a group of chief constables told Mr. William Whitelaw, Home Secretary, yesterday. I understand that individuals in the police force hold differing views.

Mr. Griffiths

I shall turn to the subject of police powers shortly. However, I have made plain for whom I speak—for the federation in this instance, and also for myself.

My amendment avoids absolute and rigid limits. They would do more harm than good. I hope that my friends in the legal profession will not object if I say that the amendment has a common law-style approach. It has three prongs, which seek to deal with the mischief done by numbers.

The first prong suggests that the numbers should not be so great as to cause intimidation. The second prong suggests that the numbers should not be so great as to create a physical barrier to lawful movement in and out of the premises. The third prong ensures that the numbers should not be so great as to cause a breach of the peace.

Do numbers intimidate? The evidence is to be found in recent examples. I shall quote some of the statements that were made to the police by those workers at Hadfields who had voted in favour of continuing to work. When they tried to go to work, some of them found that they were unable to reach the premises. The Times states: The statements told of men and women employees being spat upon, kicked, sworn at and jostled as they went to work. Women described how they had been called scabs, bastards and whores... One statement told of police stopping a busload of workers so that they had a walk of 500 yards to the factory gates... There was one policeman only on duty... Our party consisted of about 35 to 40 people; we were immediately met by pickets in large groups... We were called various names, spat at, and forced off the causeway by means of kicks and pushes... The women in the party were very brave to keep going on in these circumstances, and the men kept their patience in the very explosive situation. Surely no hon. Member would doubt that that represents intimidation. The House cannot accept such intimidation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

I am sure that the House would accept that that act was an act of intimidation. However, that specific act also constitutes a breach of the existing common law and statutory provisions.

Mr. Griffiths

Indeed, it does. Unfortunately, as the chairman of Hadfields fairly reported at the time, intimidation won a victory. It proved impracticable on that occasion—whatever the law might say—for the police to enforce the law.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Is it not a problem of enforcement? Does my hon. Frend not agree that we should ensure that we have sufficient police to enforce the existing law? The creation of further offences does not help.

Mr. Griffiths

I agree with my hon. Friend and shall comment further towards the end of my remarks.

The second prong of the amendment deals not so much with intimidation but with the question whether numbers can and do constitute a physical barrier to those who lawfully seek to go in and out of the premises being picketed. I have no need to quote examples; I can refer to my own experience. I did not have the same number of opportunities to visit Grunwick during the picketing as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, North (Mr. Gorst). However, I did go there to observe what was going on.

There is no question but that when one is faced with 10,000 to 20,000 people, jostling, shouting and fighting with the police, and occasionally with one another, in a confined space, other people are physically impeded from lawfully going in and out of the premises. The need for the second prong of my amendment is demonstrated on the evidence.

The third prong concerns the question whether numbers can lead to a breach of the peace. All hon. Members are concerned when an industrial dispute is latched on to by large numbers of people who have no part in the industrial dispute, and who have simply gone along to make as much trouble as possible. Large numbers of those who took part in the picketing at Grunwick were not trade unionists. I am thinking of many of those who are on the extreme fringes of politics—on the Right and on the Left —of various student bodies, and others who came along for the punch-up. When numbers on a picket line swell to such a point that they cause a major breach of the peace, the law should take a clearer view.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham)

It seems that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of having a basic misconception of the meaning of the clause. He has been talking about the police. He has told us several times that he speaks for the Police Federation. However, the clause has nothing to do with the criminal law; it is concerned solely with civil actions. If the amendment were approved, would it not mean that those present in such numbers as to cause intimidation could be sued in the civil courts? What have the police to do with the clause?

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the clause would involve the police if it were amended in the fashion that I propose.

Mr. Budgen

Does my hon. Friend say that if the amendment is accepted it will create a criminal offence? Surely it would be only in the circumstances of a potential criminal offence that the police would be involved.

Mr. Griffiths

I shall answer my hon. Friend's question in my own way in the brief time that I want to take.

I made it plain at the outset that I do not regard the amendment as in any sense hostile to my right hon. Friend's Bill and general philosophy. That is why I do not propose to press it to a Division. I am well aware that the Government have chosen not to go down the road of criminal sanctions. They have chosen to adopt civil injunctions. If I were to succeed in inserting the amendment, it would be a proposal without the sanction that I judge that it requires to have. And as I believe that this would be technically defective, I shall not press the amendment.

However, there is real concern about these matters. It is maintained by some lawyers, by some chief officers of police and by the Attorney-General that there is already sufficient power for the police to take action. That is partly in the form of statute law and partly in the form of a great deal of case law that has been tried by the courts.

I accept immediately that there are powers for the police to act provided that they have the resources and the will. However, there is value for the public, pickets, the press and the police to be able clearly to understand exactly what the law is, what their powers are. and the limits of picketing. It is for that reason that I see merit in there being on the face of the Bill a declaration that sets out the limits of picketing, namely, that pickets should not intimidate, they should not constitute a physical barrier, and they should not cause a breach of the peace.

Bearing in mind the way in which the Bill is structured and the philosophy that my right hon. Friend has adopted, with which I broadly agree, I think it advisable for the matters to which I have referred to be spelt out in the code of conduct that will accompany the Bill when it becomes law.

If the Government accept that these are matters of grave public concern and that it is necessary to make all concerned well aware of what the law is and what its limits are, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to confirm that the code of conduct should spell out the issues and make them plain to all concerned. If he is prepared to do that, I ask for a further undertaking that he will consult not only the Police Federation and the chief officers but all others concerned, so that what appears in the code of conduct will be clearly understood.

7.45 pm

I ask for a further undertaking. The Government have decided, rightly or wrongly, to avoid the criminal law. If that works, so be it. However, if it is found, after a period, that it is not working, I ask the Government to think again.

If my hon. and learned Friend is able to give those undertakings I shall not press the amendment to a Division. His own and my right hon. Friend's ready willingness so far to discuss the matter with the police service has been appreciated, and I hope that we can continue in that way.

Mr. John Evans (Newton)

At one stage I felt that I should have to rebut some of the charges made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). However, I recognise that he has taken a great deal of the time of the House to justify his position as adviser to the Police Federation. I am well aware that the House wishes to make progress, and it is not my intention to speak at length on the amendment.

Everyone, both inside and outside the House, including the overwhelming majority of trade unionists involved in industrial disputes, recognises and pays tribute to the work that the police have to do, often in extremely difficult situations, when industrial disputes occur. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we all recognise that until such time as Governments clearly write the law—invariably Governments have refused to do so—it will be left to the police at the scene of the action to interpret the law and public order as best they can. The hon. Gentleman's amendment does not make a great deal of sense. Presumably it would be left to the officer in charge at the scene of the action to define how many were allowed to attend.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—I speak as a sponsored Member of the AUEW—I have been involved in industrial disputes. I recognise the force behind the argument that any attempt to limit the number of pickets attending a dispute would be doomed to failure for a variety of reasons, not least because many works establishments, especially the larger ones, have many entrances. I presume that it is sought to allow only a certain number of pickets to attend irrespective of the number of entrances.

I shall concentrate briefly on amendment No. 114, which I am sure the House will recognise is a serious and thoughtful attempt to define the difficult area of mass picketing. I do not think that anyone welcomes the sight or the actions of mass picketing. It is important for the House to understand the reason and thinking behind it when it occurs. The overwhelming majority of industrial disputes involved only two or three pickets. They are settled amicably and reasonably and there is no " aggro " at the works. It is only occasionally, in well-publicised cases, that mass picketing takes place.

At such a time it is invariable that problems occur. We are seeking to give the power to the police to alter the law to give them the right to stop a lorry at the request of the official in charge of the picket to allow the picket peacefully to put the argument to the driver. The policeman would be there. He would decide whether the necessary time had been taken to put the arguments to the driver. If at the end of the pickets' argument the driver decided that he did not wish to listen to the argument, he would be free to enter or leave the works.

When pickets feel that their actions are being circumvented by lorries driving in and out to deliver materials it causes bad feeling, and mass pickets will physically try to stop these lorries. The men and women involved are forced to feel bitter and decide to stop the lorry by one menas or another. If hon. Gentlemen realise the bitterness of those feelings, they will recognise the force of our amendment. The Minister endorses the argument. On 30 July 1975 he said: I would be prepared to consider very carefully whether we ought not to confer upon the police what they have not got at present—the right to stop a vehicle for a limited period so that the picket may have the right to do that which he has the right to seek to attempt to do; namely, to persuade."—[Official Report, 30 July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 1904.] It is impossible to persuade a lorry driver travelling at 30 miles per hour. Deaths and serious accidents to pickets have been caused by lorries. Our amendment attempts to assist the Government in a difficult situation.

Clause 15 could lead to mass picketing instead of preventing it. I do not want to go over all the arguments raised in Committee, but one is important. If a convener or shop steward visits another establishment to seek support and presuade those workers to join the strike, he can be easily identified and sued. In a nutshell that is the effect of clause 15. In future he will take the whole of his factory to seek that support. It will be impossible to identify 200 or 300 or even 2,000 or 3,000 workers. There is a grave danger that clause 15 will lead to mass picketing.

The amendment would give the police the right to make a decision which in many circumstances they already take. In most industrial action a strong rapport exists between pickets and police. Without that, the majority of strikes would end in punch-ups and anarchy. We wish to prevent mass picketing occurring through the determination of the work force to stop lorries entering or leaving the establishment, and instead give the police the right to stop a lorry at the request of a picket. There may still be the odd occurrence such as Grunwick, which was more of a mass demonstration by the trade union movement to express its detestation of a particular employer. However, in the average industrial situation mass picketing may occur because the workers are upset and seek to stop lorries entering or leaving the firm by interposing their bodies. The police would not necessarily stop the lorry. The pickets could express their opinion through the policeman, but if the driver rejected it he would drive on.

I ask the Government to accept the amendment. It is a useful solution to the problems that the Bill in general and clause 15 in particular will create.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall advance only one criticism of the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). It will deprive a perfectly law-abiding picket of the statutory protection afforded by clause 15, not because of any action on his part but because of the actions of those with whom he is keeping company. In particular, he will be deprived of the statutory protection merely because he belongs to a demonstration which happens to be, because of the numbers, an obstruction or cause of intimidation. It is not right to deprive someone of a statutory protection merely because of the company that he keeps. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr. Eric G. Varley (Chesterfield)

I shall not detain the House long. In Committee we spent six sittings on what was then clause 14 and is now clause 15. However, it will be useful to give the Front Bench advice on the amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) does a great service in highlighting the issues and asking the Government to clarify the position, which was far from clear on Second Reading. It emerged more clearly when we debated the matter in Committee, but in amendment No. 19 my hon. Friend gives the Government the opportunity to state their intentions clearly: Nothing in this section shall affect existing immunities from criminal prosecution ". On 17 December last year, which is a long time ago, when I asked about the police getting involved in picketing, as outlined in the Bill, the Secretary of State strongly refuted that the Bill was anything to do with the police, and said: This has absolutely nothing to do with the police. It has nothing to do with criminal law. It is entirely a matter for the person who believes that his contracts are in some way being broken to take action through the civil court. The police are in no way involved m this."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 75–6.] If the Secretary of State is right and wishes to confirm that, I see no reason why he should not accept amendment No. 19.

I cannot advise my hon. Friends to support my hon. Friend's other amendment, No. 18. My hon. Friend probably realises now that to some extent it is impracticable to try to lay down that not more than six persons attend a picket in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) explained in Committee the difficulties that could arise at Rotherham steelworks, which stretch for about three miles, certainly out of Rotherham and nearly into Sheffield. From the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment we know that the police are opposed to that limit.

We are content to stand by the description of picketing set out by the present Attorney-General on 19 February. The police in their evidence say that the existing law on picketing is adequate. It relies to a great extent on the common sense of those who are picketing and the police who are trying to see that no disorder takes place. Mr. Alan Goodson, chief constable of Leicestershire and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers was reported in The Times on 21 February as saying that he ruled out as impractical any new legislation laying down a precise limit on " the number of people who can constitute a peaceful picket. I think that is absolutely right. There is a great weight of evidence that suggests that the House should not consider anything like that.

Of course there is the problem of large numbers of pickets. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is right. I do not know whether he has looked recently at the TUC guides on picketing, but these are a blueprint for industrial peace. It is a great tragedy that the Government have discarded these guides, rather than seeking to build on them.

Mr. May hew

No.

8 pm

Mr. Varley

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government have not discarded them, but I have seen some of the correspondence between the Department of Employment and the TUC. The emphasis laid on the guides by Mr. Len Murray is that these were part of a package, and certainly the other part of the package has gone.

On the question of mass picketing the TUC says: In any situation where large numbers of people with strong feelings are involved, there is a danger that things can get out of control, particularly in a confined area, such as access to a factory. It is therefore particularly important for any such demonstrations to be well conducted in a well organised and disciplined manner. It is also important that demonstrations of this kind do not convey the impression that the object is to blockade the workplace. Another sentence within this guide says of the trade union officer in charge: He should ensure that the number of pickets is no larger than is necessary ". It is rather a tragedy that the Government have not at least talked to the TUC about these guides, rather than moving straight to legislation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Of course what the right hon. Member says is in every way a good approach. Will the TUC discuss this with the Government in an open way before the Government make their own code of practice known? I believe that it would be very sensible for the TUC to help in that way, if it will.

Mr. Varley

I have seen the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the General Secretary of the TUC. The TUC places great emphasis, not only on its guides but on the other documents that it produced at that time—for example, those on the question of the commitment to reduce inflation, and to support certain industrial policies, and so on. I cannot speak for the TUC but I suspect that the Secretary of State, when he produces his new codes of practice later in the year after the Bill has reached the statute book, will invite the TUC to discuss its guides again. I do not know what the TUC's reaction will be.

When we come to Third Reading I shall have something to say about the way in which Government should proceed on trade union matters. My judgment is that these codes of practice are a much better way of trying to conduct industrial disputes, rather than moving straight to the law and getting the courts involved, as they inevitably will be.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for York will not pursue amendment No. 18, but that he will press amendment No. 19 if he is called to do so. On that basis we shall support him.

Mr. Mayhew

Perhaps it will be convenient if I deal first with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and then deal with the two amendments proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I fully understand the anxiety that lies behind my hon. Friend's amendment. He said at the outset that the terms of the amendment were entirely consistent with our manifesto. I accept that. I also accept that the amendment is not in any sense hostile to the theme of the Bill or to the task that the Government have adopted.

My hon. Friend also said that there was no doubt that numbers were the problem. That is true. We are all familiar with the most recent illustrations of mass picketing and the great burdens that they impose on the police and upon many members of the public, as well as those who are anxious only to get on with their work. In recent years we have all seen the violence and disorder which have occurred as a result of mass picketing. Nothing can justify that sort of behaviour. I do not believe that anyone in this House would believe that it was justifiable, but we must all recognise that it is more likely to occur where there is mass picketing than where picketing is confined or is limited to small numbers. Mass picketing deeply offends most decent people, who find it extraordinary that the scenes commonly associated therewith should take place in this country without any control. This has done more than anything in recent years to alienate public sympathy and to tarnish the reputation of the trade unions in whose names it is carried out. That is serious because all sensible people want the trade union movement to have a good name.

Above all, mass picketing imposes an enormous burden of enforcement on the police, whose job it is not to take sides in an industrial dispute but to try to maintain the Queen's peace against sometimes imposible odds. Indeed, it is important that the police should be seen not to take sides. That is a job that they do with great judgment, courage, restraint and good sense. We should compliment them on, and thank them for, their work in tackling such a difficult and unpleasant task. I gladly do that.

I wish to make it clear that, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—— The criminal law of the land applies to pickets as it does to anybody else. Let there be no illusion that the immunity provided under the civil law enables pickets to break the criminal law. Of course that is right. The immunity conferred by section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 does not permit a picket to break the criminal law. Later my right hon. and learned Friend says: If pickets by sheer numbers, seek to stop people going to work or delivering or collecting goods they are not protected by the law since their purpose is to obstruct rather than persuade."—[Official Report, 19 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 238–39.] It is small wonder that the Police Federation, whose interests my hon. Friend represents so faithfully, and whose members have recently had to confront 1,500 pickets at Hadfields, wants to write into this clause an expression of the limitations that the criminal law already imposes upon numbers. The purpose of this amendment is to withdraw immunity from civil action from those who picket in such numbers that they intimidate persons by their very numbers or constitute a physical barrier to lawful movement or create a breach of the peace. I can well understand why the federation wanted that written into the clause.

However, my hon. Friend with his close knowledge of these matters has made it clear that he understands that picketing which has those consequences is already criminally unlawful. What is more, such pickets are not protected by immunity from action under the civil law. The Attorney-General made that clear as well. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said in concluding his speech. He claimed that there is a need for the law relating to picketing, particularly the criminal law, to be clearly understood and known by everyone who is potentially affected by it. That means people who want to picket, those who organise them, those whose premises are affected and workers who want to go to work but who are affected by the action of the pickets.

That, I know, is the purpose of the amendment, and to most people it is far from clear at present. It needs to be made clear so that not only pickets and those who organise them but everyone else concerned are in no doubt where they stand under the law. However, it is very difficult to do this in the language of a statute, especially one which has to use the complicated device of granting immunity from civil action, and which is a concept of great complexity in which we have been locked since 1906.

I do not think we will get clarity or simplicity or anything like that as long as we persist with it. The language of a statute is necessarily technical and compressed and there is always the risk that what is intended to clarify will in some unforeseen way create new uncertainties. For example, an amendment of this kind could lead to confusion between the civil and the criminal law. Section 15 of the 1974 Act, which the Bill seeks to amend, deals primarily with, the civil law. The effect of this amendment would be to emphasise that the civil law immunities are put at risk if criminal offences are committed. The clause already has that effect.

Rather than trying to achieve this necessary purpose by adding to this clause, therefore, the Government think it wiser that there should be an authoritative code of practice on picketing in which the law can be explained in whatever detail and with whatever illustrative examples may be necessary. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the TUC made a valuable contribution in its guide of February last year. It followed upon a valuable contribution by the National Union of Mineworkers a few years earlier. However, neither is enough. The TUC guide certainly forms a foundation upon which an up-to-date code could well be built, but it is not enough, for one reason alone, that it permits picketing at a place other than the place of work, which is contrary to the Govern- ment's policy. I acknowledge its value and, as my right hon. Friend has said, we would be pleased if, in co-operation, we could build upon that foundation an up-to-date and sufficient code of practice.

There would, of course, need to be very wide consultation, and my right hon. Friend has asked me, in response to the two questions that my hon. Friend asked me, to give the assurance that it would be his intention to consult very fully with the police, including—naturally—the Police Federation. By reason of their special position, experience and responsibilities, there can be none with more important advice to offer, although there will be others with equally important advice to offer.

I am glad to be able to give the assurance today that we will so consult when it comes to considering what the code of practice will contain. That only reiterates what my right hon. Friend told the leaders of the Police Federation when they visited us on 8 February.

I was then asked by my hon. Friend whether if the approach which the Government are adopting—avoiding a change in the criminal law—does not work, the Government would think again. It will certainly do so, but I give no assurance that we will consider adding to the criminal law, although we would not rule it out, for the reasons given by my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), that if there is a criminal offence on the statute book already which will enable the mischief to be dealt with if only it can be enforced, one does not really diminish the difficulties simply by writing another criminal offence into the statute book. That is the difficulty. I hope I have made the Government's position clear to my hon. Friend and I hope that, on the assurance I have given, he will feel able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

I come now to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). There are two major grounds upon which I have to say that we cannot accept it. The first is that it defeats the principal purpose of the clause, which is to restrict lawful picketing to the picket's own place of work. The second is that it confers upon pickets the right to stop vehicles for the purpose of picketing peacefully. This is something which has never been conferred upon pickets. The law always upheld the right of everyone to pass freely along the highway.

As the Attorney-General said on 19 February: Each one of us is free, as an individual, to come and go as he pleases to his home or to his place of work. The law specifically protects our enjoyment of those rights."—[Official Report, 19 February, 1980: Vol. 979, c. 238.] The Government propose to ensure that it continues to do so. The need in today's conditions to communicate one's own side of the case in an industrial dispute cannot warrant, we believe, an incursion into the right of free passage of such fundamental significance. It is perfectly easy to indicate where a picket line is established. Anyone approaching a picket line today knows that the pickets are anxious to persuade him, if they can, not to cross the line, or at least to explain their case. The decision whether to stop and listen must be left to them.

8.15 pm

This point of principle is not avoided by the variant to this amendment which is contained in amendment No. 114 argued by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), which would give the police power to stop any vehicle leaving or entering the place of work at the request of pickets. It may be slightly less offensive that someone should be stopped by a police officer at the request of pickets than by a picket himself, but it does not alter the main objection in principle, which I have already mentioned, that we do not believe that someone's personal liberty to decide whether or not to stop should be infringed at the request of someone who wishes to put his point in relation to a dispute that he is carrying on with his employer. We do not, therefore, believe that 114 is possible.

I also agree with the last point made by the hon. Gentleman that to write in any number, be it six or 16, imparts a rigidity to this statute which is at odds with the essential need for flexibility that the police have always identified and insisted upon. That would be a mistake.

I turn now to the contention that clause 15 significantly enlarges the ambit of the criminal law and will make more pickets liable to imprisonment. I am very conscious of the time constraints, but I am also conscious of the correspondence that has taken place between himself and my right hon. Friend and of the importance of the point he makes, and I hope to have the indulgence of the House if I take a few minutes to deal with the point of law he has raised. I would not wish to skirt round it.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said on 19 February: the law on picketing does not in any real way change the criminal law. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. and learned Friend went on to say: So far as I can see, the only way in which the immunity given in the existing law on picketing changes the criminal law is that it permits an obstruction of the highway. That is not a serious obstruction. The law permits one to stand on the pavement or in the road outside the place of work where ordinarily one would not be permitted to do so because the highway is meant for passing and repassing. That, I think, is the limit. It is only to that extent that the immunity would be removed if clause 14 became effective."—[Official Report, 19 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 555.] What he was referring to was the technical wrong of not using the highway for passing and re-passing but for standing in a static position as a picket. The offence under the Highways Act is as follows:— without lawful authority or excuse in any way wilfully obstructing the free passage along a highway ". The test of obstruction, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is whether the use of the highway is unreasonable. Whether it is unreasonable depends on all the circumstances, including its duration, position and purpose and whether it causes actual as opposed to potential obstruction. The hon. Gentleman said, when moving his amendment, that even to stand still on the highway was, as I understood him, to commit a criminal offence because it was potentially an obstruction. I must take issue with him there: one cannot commit a potential offence.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

This is the very crux of it. The argument I put forward—and I think I have solid legal basis for it—is that one can. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his legal advisers have taken the view that one cannot. Very well. But if I am right then a police officer can come to a picket and say " You are not employed at this place of work. You must move on."

Because of the assurances which the Secretary of State has given, the picket thinks that the police have no right to move on a person even if he is a secondary picket, and he resists. What is the position then? It is no good talking about differences between legal authorities, which I can cheerfully swap with the hon. Gentleman. Is it not right that this clause should make it clear that the police officer has no power to move on a picket even in those circumstances, merely because he is not employed at that place of work?

Mr. Mayhew

I do not believe that this clause should concern itself with the criminal law, nor do I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that perhaps the Attorney-General supports him in the contention that he has just expressed, namely, that it is possible to commit a criminal offence merely by standing in one position in the highway and obstructing no one. I shall explain why. The Attorney-General had in mind the test that it would have to be an unreasonable user of the highway to constitute an offence of wilfully obstructing it under the Highways Act. He said, during the 25th sitting of the Committee: If, by contrast "—— that is to say, by contrast to actual physical obstruction—— all a person does is to stand on the pavement on the side of the road, without interfering with the rights of others to pass and re-pass, and peacefully communicates information—perhaps by holding a placard or by speaking—or tries to persuade others not to enter their place of work, that does not amount to obstruction, even in the technical sense ". I pause to remind the hon. Gentleman that the only possible criminal offence can be obstruction. That is permitted under the common law. It needs no statutory protection. That was first decided in 1906, and again by Lord Widgery in 1974 and Lord Denning in 1976. Therefore, in those circumstances, the amendment of section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which this clause will affect, has no effect on criminal liability at all.

But the Attorney-General went on to deal with a situation in which a peaceful picket does interfere with the rights of others to pass, not deliberately but incidentally, not causing, to use his words on 19 February a " serious obstruction ", but preventing from moving along the pavement people who are trying not to get into the works but to the bus stop or the shops. He said that that would seem to be a very rare occasion but that if there were an obstruction under the Highways Act, where it was a lawful picket, it is open to argument that section 15 might provide immunity. Some say that section 15 is declaratory; others say that it would go further and provide an immunity in that case. But he continued whatever the precise legal effect of section 15, its practical consequences are not in doubt. It confers no immunity from prosecution for obstruction in the sense in which that term is normally understood: that is, physically preventing a person from going where he wants to go, not only into the works, but also along the pavement to the other end of the road. If pickets go beyond peaceful persuasion and obstruct the passage of workers or vehicles, everyone knows that there is no protection for that sort of act. It follows that the limitation on the scope of lawful picketing proposed in clause 14 does not in any real terms extend the ambit of the criminal law. It does not create any new criminal offence and it does not affect the powers and duties of the police in any way ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 March 1980; c. 1347–48.] I think that the House will therefore agree that my right hon. Friend was entitled to say, in his Second Reading speech, that the Bill does not create any additional burden on the police because it does not create any new criminal offence. Similarly, I believe that I was entitled to say: The criminal law is not being affected."—[Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 169.]

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

After we have passed this clause in an unamended state, will it be possible for a police officer to go up to a picket and say " You are not employed at this place of work. You must move on "? If the person refuses to move on, has he committed a criminal offence?

Mr. Mayhew

On the basis of the explanation given by the Attorney-General, which I have just read, a picket who is not preventing or obstructing in any way the passage of anyone along the pavement would not be committing the offence of obstruction. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be lawful for a police officer to say " Move on ", and to prosecute him for obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty. It would be a different matter if some obstruction were being committed. That is what I understand the Attorney-General to be saying, and I believe it to be right.

Mr. Lyon

If that is the effect, why not accept the amendment?

Mr. Mayhew

I am about to explain why I do not believe that amendment No. 19, which says that existing criminal immunities are not affected—I have paraphrased it, but that is the guts of it—ought to be accepted. It refers to existing immunities from criminal prosecution. Even if that is an accurate expression, which in law I do not believe it is—at any rate, I doubt whether it is—I do not believe that there are any criminal immunitites, except in respect of the technical offences of obstruction, which I have mentioned. It would not dissolve the doubt to which the Attorney-General referred, when he said that some say one thing and some say the other. It would have the defect of introducing a reference to the criminal law in a clause that deals with the civil law.

If the amendment were accepted, it might lead pickets and others to think that they had immunity from criminal prosecution for criminal offences other than obstruction. Indeed, the very reference to " immunities "—in the plural—suggests that more than obstruction is involved. Yet I know of no offence other than that of obstructing the highway that could be relevant.

The courts themselves would not necessarily know what existing immunities the Act was referring to. Also, I very much doubt whether it is accurate to speak of immunity from criminal prosecution. I believe that the true way of expressing it would be to say that in those circumstances the picket has not committed a criminal offence. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the careful way in which he argued his case, but I believe it to be misconceived and I must advise my right hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Lyon

I am happy to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 18, although I do not accept the arguments, either in relation to numbers or to stopping the vehicle. The fact that there will be a limited number of pickets at any factory gate would make it perfectly possible to cope with the situation. The fact is that to allow an immunity for stopping a vehicle is the only way in which one will prevent great numbers of strikers, who feel deeply that those lorries are breaking their strike, from trying to interfere physically in order to stop them. The only way in which we shall get rid of violence is by allowing a right, in the sense of an immunity, to stop a vehicle.

I should like to deal with amendment No. 19. I come back to what I have said about the potential of considerable conflict on future picket lines, when the police say to pickets who have attended from other places of work that they should move on and then arrest them, either for obstruction or for failing to obey the instructions of a police officer in the execution of his duty. Because that is against what the Government intend, surely it would be possible to accept this amendment.

The hon. and learned Gentleman conceded my argument. If there is a criminal offence which is now capable of being committed if this clause passes unamended—even if it is the relatively trivial one of an obstruction, of somebody not involved in getting into the place of work—surely it is better that we should remove that doubt from the criminal law by allowing this amendment to pass. The fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to allow it to pass suggests that all along this Government have recognised that this will extend the power of the police to intervene in an industrial situation and that although they purport not to want that, that is really what they are after. I hope that the Opposition will vote heavily against this provision.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 17, line 20, at end insert— at the place of work of another member of the same trade union, or at the place of work of another member of the same trade union who is engaged in the same or a related dispute, or at the premises of any employer engaged in the dispute, or at other premises of the person's employer, or at the premises to which work has been transferred either immediately preceding the dispute or during the course of the dispute, or at the premises of an associated employer, or. I must tell the House that I had this morning prepared some very powerful and persuasive arguments in favour of all the parts of this amendment but I have been sitting here watching the digital clock tick away and I sense an anxiety to make sure that we not only have a Third Reading debate and a Division but finish at a reasonable hour. So, with the greatest reluctance and, I am sure, to the delight of the House, I shall dispense with the argument and merely rest on the fact that the amendment is self-explanatory in all its details and makes its own case.

We have learn sufficient by now, particularly after the long hours during which we debated this clause of the Bill in the Standing Committee, to anticipate the Government's reaction. I know that they are extremely unlikely to accept this amendment, so I am going to save the time of the House by saying that I urge my hon. Friends, when the Minister has replied, to divide the House on this amendment.

Mr. Prior

I too had prepared a long speech on this amendment and I am very happy not to have to deliver it to the House. All I must say to the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) is that I believe that this amendment would wreck this particular clause and the purpose which underlines it. What we have sought to do is take secondary picketing, say that it is a particularly odious form of industrial action and seek to make it unlawful. There are too many cases nowadays in which not only does an employer find his business disrupted by secondary picketing, but employees who feel they have absolutely nothing to do with the dispute in question are afraid of going into work. They find themselves in a position in which, even after having voted to continue working, they are still not working, partly because of the things we have been discussing under the previous amendment but also because of the effects of even peaceful secondary picketing.

Having considered the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen in Committee stage—and they cited in particular picketing of premises to which an employer has transferred work during a dispute and the picketing of other premises or companies associated with it—I still believe that there is a perfect case for saying that this picketing should not take place. There are many methods open to employees in dispute of explaining the situation to, and gaining the support of, other workers, and secondary picketing is not necessary for that purpose. It may start out as a means of persuasion but too often it turns into an indiscriminate blockade of the employer's premises, which can have damaging effects not only for that employer and his employees but

for customers and suppliers, and so on down the chain.

It is for all these reasons that I ask my right hon and hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 316.

Division No. 274]	AYES	[8.30 pm
Abse, Leo	Ennals, Rt Hon David	Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Adams, Allen	Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Allaun, Frank	Evans, John (Newton)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Anderson, Donald	Ewing, Harry	McElhone, Frank
Archer Rt Hon Peter	Faulds, Andrew	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Field, Frank	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ashton, Joe	Fitch, Alan	McKelvey, William
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)	Flannery, Martin	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	Maclennan, Robert
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McNally, Thomas
Beith, A. J.	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McWilliam, John
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Ford, Ben	Marks, Kenneth
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Forrester, John	Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Bidwell, Sydney	Foster, Derek	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Foulkes, George	Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)	Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)	Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Maxton, John
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Maynard, Miss Joan
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)	George, Bruce	Meacher, Michael
Buchan, Norman	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Ginsburg, David	Mikardo, Ian
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Golding, John	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Campbell, Ian	Gourlay, Harry	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Canavan, Dennis	Grant, John (Islington C)	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Cant, R. B.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Carmichael, Neil	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hardy, Peter	Morton, George
Cartwright, John	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Newens, Stanley
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Haynes, Frank	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Cohen, Stanley	Healey, Rt Hon Denis	O'Halloran, Michael
Coleman, Donald	Heffer, Eric S.	O'Neill, Martin
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Conlan, Bernard	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Cook, Robin F.	Home Robertson, John	Palmer, Arthur
Cowans, Harry	Homewood, William	Parker, John
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)	Hooley, Frank	Parry, Robert
Crowther, J. S.	Horam, John	Pavitt, Laurie
Cryer, Bob	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Pendry, Tom
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Huckfield, Les	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)	Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed	Prescott, John
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Race, Reg
Davidson, Arthur	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Radice, Giles
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Janner, Hon Greville	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Richardson, Jo
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham. Stechford)	John, Brynmor	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Dempsey, James	Johnson, Walter (Derby South)	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dixon, Donald	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Robertson, George
Dobson, Frank	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Dormand, Jack	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Kerr, Russell	Rooker, J. W.
Dubs, Alfred	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Kinnock, Neil	Rowlands, Ted
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)	Lamborn, Harry	Ryman, John
Dunnett, Jack	Lamond, James	Sever, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Leighton, Ronald	Sheerman, Barry
Eadie, Alex	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Eastham, Ken	Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Short, Mrs Renée
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)	Litherland, Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
English, Michael	Lyon, Alexander (York)	Silverman, Julius
Skinner, Dennis	Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)	Wigley, Dafydd
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Snape, Peter	Tilley, John	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Soley, Clive	Tinn, James	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Spearing, Nigel	Torney, Tom	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Spriggs, Leslie	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom	Winnick, David
Stallard, A. W.	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.	Woodall, Alec
Stoddart, David	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	Woolmer, Kenneth
Stott, Roger	Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Strang, Gavin	Watkins, David	Wright, Sheila
Straw, Jack	Weetch, Ken	Young, David (Bolton East)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Wellbeloved, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)	Welsh, Michael	TELLERS POR THE AVES:
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)	White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)	Mr. Hugh McCartney and
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)	Mr. Ted Graham.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)	Whitlock, William
NOES
Adley, Robert	Cranborne, Viscount	Hill, James
Aitken, Jonathan	Critchley, Julian	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Alexander, Richard	Crouch, David	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Alison, Michael	Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Hooson, Tom
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Dickens, Geoffrey	Hordern, Peter
Ancram, Michael	Dorrell, Stephen	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Arnold, Tom	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Aspinwall, Jack	Dover, Denshore	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Howells, Geraint
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Durant, Tony	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Dykes, Hugh	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Banks, Robert	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Beith, A. J.	Eggar, Timothy	Jessel, Toby
Bell, Sir Ronald	Elliott, Sir William	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Bendall, Vivian	Emery, Peter	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Eyre, Reginald	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Fairgrieve, Russell	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Best, Keith	Faith, Mrs Sheila	Kimball, Marcus
Bevan, David Gilroy	Farr, John	King, Rt Hon Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Fell, Anthony	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Biggs-Davison, John	Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Knight, Mrs Jill
Blackburn, John	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Knox, David
Body, Richard	Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)	Lamont, Norman
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lang, Ian
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fookes, Miss Janet	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Forman, Nigel	Latham, Michael
Bowden, Andrew	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Lawrence, Ivan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Fox, Marcus	Lawson, Nigel
Braine, Sir Bernard	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Lee, John
Bright, Graham	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Brinton, Tim	Fry, Peter	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Brittan, Leon	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Brotherton, Michael	Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Loveridge, John
Browne, John (Winchester)	Glyn, Dr Alan	Lyell, Nicholas
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Goodlad, Alastair	McCrindle, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul	Gorst, John	Macfarlane, Neil
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick	Gow, Ian	MacGregor, John
Buck, Antony	Gower, Sir Raymond	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Budgen, Nick	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Bulmer, Esmond	Gray, Hamish	McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Burden, F. A.	Greenway, Harry	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Butcher, John	Grieve, Percy	McQuarrie, Albert
Butler, Hon Adam	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Madel, David
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Major, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Marland, Paul
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Grist, Ian	Marlow, Tony
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Grylls, Michael	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Gummer, John Selwyn	Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Channon, Paul	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Mates, Michael
Chapman, Sydney	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mather, Carol
Churchill, W. S.	Hampson, Dr Keith	Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hannam, John	Mawby, Ray
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Haselhurst, Alan	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hastings, Stephen	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Clegg, Sir Walter	Hawksley, Warren	Mayhew, Patrick
Cockeram, Eric	Hayhoe, Barney	Mellor, David
Colvin, Michael	Heddle, John	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Cope, John	Henderson, Barry	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Cormack, Patrick	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Corrie, John	Hicks, Robert	Miscampbell, Norman
Costain. A. P.	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Moate, Roger	Rathbone, Tim	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Molyneux, James	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)	Tebbit, Norman
Monro, Hector	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Temple-Morris, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus	Renton, Tim	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Moore, John	Rhodes James, Robert	Thompson, Donald
Morgan, Geraint	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Thornton, Malcolm
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)	Ridsdale, Julian	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Trippier, David
Mudd, David	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Trotter, Neville
Murphy, Christopher	Rossi, Hugh	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Myles, David	Rost, Peter	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Neale, Gerrard	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Viggers, Peter
Needham, Richard	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Waddington, David
Nelson, Anthony	Scott, Nicholas	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Neubert, Michael	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Wakeham, John
Newton, Tony	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Normanton, Tom	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Nott, Rt Hon John	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Onslow, Cranley	Silvester, Fred	Wall, Patrick
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally	Sims, Roger	Waller, Gary
Osborn, John	Skeet, T. H. H.	Walters, Dennis
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)	Ward, John
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)	Watson, John
Parris, Matthew	Speed, Keith	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Speller, Tony	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Patten, John (Oxford)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Wheeler, John
Pattie, Geoffrey	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)	Whitney, Raymond
Pawsey, James	Sproat, lain	Wickenden, Keith
Penhaligon, David	Squire, Robin	Wiggin, Jerry
Percival, Sir Ian	Stainton, Keith	Wilkinson, John
Pink, Rt Bonner	Stanbrook, Ivor	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Pollock, Alexander	Stanley, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Porter, George	Steel, Rt Hon David	Wolfson, Mark
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Steen, Anthony	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Stevens, Martin	Younger, Rt Hon George
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Prior, Rt Hon James	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Proctor, K. Harvey	Stradling Thomas, J.	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Tapsell, Peter	Mr. Anthony Berry.
Raison, Timothy	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 17, line 21, leave out from ' union ' to end of line 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Mr. Walker

I hope that I might earn the gratitude of the House by being as brief in moving this amendment as I was in moving the last.

The provision in the clause is absurdly restrictive. As the clause is drafted it would, for example, expose Mr. Len Murray to a civil action if he had to do what I am sure the Secretary of State would love him to do in one of the situations described. He might pop along and say to the lads " Lads, just cool it a bit ". The mere act of doing that, under this provision, would expose Mr. Murray to action in the courts.

8.45 pm

The same would apply if the secretary of the local trades council wanted to pop along to the chaps on the picket line and say " Lads, there's a cup of tea for you at the trades hall when you are ready." Again, it seems to us that he will be caught by the provisions of the Bill and exposed to civil action. I do not intend to inflict on the House any more examples of the absurdities that have been created by the Government, despite the fact that I could quote an endless list of them. I hope that that, of itself, will convince the Secretary of State, and the House, of the good sense of this modest little amendment.

I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will say, when he moves his own amendments, that he has gone some way towards meeting the arguments we advanced in Committee. I confess that I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. I hope that, with the same brevity with which I have moved amendment No. 88, he will tell us exactly what the amendments mean and indicate whether he has responded in any degree to the persuasive arguments advanced in Committee.

Mr. Prior

Amendment No. 88 would considerably increase the number of people who could attend on a picket line and would allow any trade union official to picket anywhere. We think that that is far too wide-ranging a measure. We do not see why officials should be able to picket where there is no dispute or, if there is a dispute, where they do not represent the workers on the picket line. We have tabled amendments Nos. 26 and 27 which will make it clear that trade union officials may accompany the members of their union whom they represent. That provides them with complete scope to carry out their normal duties.

I turn to the amendments which the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to understand. The effect of amendment No. 26, which adds the words " and whom he represents ", provides that it should be lawful for a trade union official to picket alongside his members only if he represents those members. Amendment No. 27 which comes at the end of line 40 explains what this means. Those officials—that is to say shop stewards—who have been elected, or appointed, to represent a specific group of employees are to be regarded for the purposes of this clause as representing only those employees and no others.

Other trade union officials—that is to say national officials—who do not represent a specific group of members are to be regarded as representing all the members of a trade union. Hence, they are able to join a picket line of any members of their union.

During discussions in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) pointed out that the clause as drafted allowed wide scope for picketing by trade union officials whose members were picketing, whether or not those officials represented members of the

union on the picket line or those who had a direct interest in the dispute. For that purpose my hon. Friend tabled an amendment to narrow that scope. The Opposition pointed out that the amendment might be, and probably would be, unnecessarily narrow as it could prevent people such as a branch chairman or the lay president of the union from attending a picket line. Our amendments take account of those two arguments and make it lawful for a branch chairman or secretary to picket at any place where members of their branch are picketing lawfully. The lay president—in so far as he is likely to want to join a picket line at all—will be able to attend alongside any of his members who are picketing.

At the same time the amendment will prevent officials who do not represent those who are actually picketing from being drafted in to swell the numbers on that picket fine or to act as a prime picket. Therefore, in some respects, we have narrowed the definition as my hon. Friend suggested. On the other hand, we have widened it to the extent that the Opposition asked us to do in Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 17, line 23, at end insert ' and whom he represents '.—[Mr. Prior.]

Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 17, line 40, at end insert— ' (2) Nothing in this section shall affect existing immunities from criminal prosecution.'.—[Mr. Alexander W. Lyon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 310.

Division No. 275]	AYES	[8.50 pm
Abse, Leo	Buchan, Norman	Cryer, Bob
Adams, Allen	Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Allaun, Frank	Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Anderson, Donald	Campbell, Ian	Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Campbell-Savours, Dale	Dalyell, Tam
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Canavan, Dennis	Davidson, Arthur
Ashton, Joe	Cant, R. B.	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)	Carmichael, Neil	Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Cartwright, John	Dempsey, James
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Dewar, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Dixon, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cohen, Stanley	Dobson, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney	Coleman, Donald	Dormand, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)	Conlan, Bernard	Dubs, Alfred
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cook, Robin F.	Duffy, A. E. P.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Cowans, Harry	Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)	Dunnett, Jack
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)	Crowther, J. S.	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alex	Kinnock, Nell	Robertson, George
Eastham Ken	Lamborn, Harry	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lamond, James	Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)	Leighton, Ronald	Rooker, J. W.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
English, Michael	Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)	Rowlands, Ted
Ennals, Rt Hon David	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Ryman, John
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Litherland, Robert	Sever, John
Evans, John (Newton)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Sheerman, Barry
Ewing, Harry	Lyon, Alexander (York)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Faulds, Andrew	Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Field, Frank	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Short, Mrs Renée
Fitch, Alan	McCartney, Hugh	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Flannery, Martin	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	McElhone, Frank	Silverman, Julius
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Skinner, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Ford, Ben	McKelvey, William	Snape, Peter
Forrester, John	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Soley, Clive
Foster, Derek	Maclennan, Robert	Spearing, Nigel
Foulkes, George	McNally, Thomas	Spriggs, Leslie
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)	McWilliam, John	Stallard, A. W.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Marks, Kenneth	Stoddart, David
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)	Stott, Roger
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Strang, Gavin
George, Bruce	Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)	Straw, Jack
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Ginsburg, David	Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Golding, John	Maxton, John	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Gourlay, Harry	Maynard, Miss Joan	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Graham, Ted	Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Mikardo, Ian	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Tilley, John
Hardy, Peter	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Tinn, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Torney, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Haynes, Frank	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Morton, George	Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Heffer, Eric S.	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Watkins, David
Hogg Norman (E Dunbartonshire)	Newens, Stanley	Weetch, Ken
Holland. Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Wellbeloved, James
Home Robertson, John	O'Halloran, Michael	Welsh, Michael
Homewood, William	O'Neill, Martin	White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
Hooley, Frank	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)
Horam, John	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Whitehead, Phillip
Howell Rt Hon Denis (B ham, Sm H)	Palmer, Arthur	Whitlock, William
Huckfield, Les	Parker, John	Wigley, Dafydd
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed	Parry, Robert	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Pavitt, Laurie	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Pendry, Tom	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Janner, Hon Greville	Prescott, John	Winnick, David
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)	Woodall, Alec
John, Brynmor	Race, Reg	Woolmer, Kenneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Radice, Giles	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Johnson, Waller (Derby South)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)	Wright, Sheila
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)	Richardson, Jo	Young, David (Bolton East)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)	Mr. Terry Davis and
Kerr, Russell	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Mr. James Hamilton
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
NOES
Adley, Robert	Bevan, David Gilroy	Buck, Antony
Aitken, Jonathan	Biffen, Rt Hon John	Budgen, Nick
Alexander, Richard	Biggs-Davison, John	Bulmer, Esmond
Alison, Michael	Blackburn, John	Burden, F. A.
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Body, Richard	Butcher, John
Ancram, Michael	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Butler, Hon Adam
Arnold, Tom	Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Cadbury, Jocelyn
Aspinwall, Jack	Bowden, Andrew	Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Braine, Sir Bernard	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Bright, Graham	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Banks, Robert	Brinton, Tim	Channon, Paul
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Brittan, Leon	Chapman, Sydney
Beith, A. J.	Brooke, Hon Peter	Churchill, W. S.
Bell, Sir Ronald	Brotherton, Michael	Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bendall Vivian	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Browne, John (Winchester)	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Bruce-Gardyne, John	Clegg, Sir Walter
Berry, Hon Anthony	Bryan, Sir Paul	Cockeram, Eric
Best, Keith	Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick	Colvin, Michael

Cope, John	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Prior, Rt Hon James
Cormack, Patrick	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Proctor, K. Harvey
Carrie, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Costain, A. P.	Kimball, Marcus	Raison, Timothy
Cranborne, Viscount	King, Rt Hon Tom	Rathbone, Tim
Critchley, Julian	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Crouch, David	Knight, Mrs Jill	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Knox, David	Renton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey	Lamont, Norman	Rhodes James, Robert
Dorrell, Stephen	Lang, Ian	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Ridsdale, Julian
Dover, Denshore	Latham, Michael	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Lawrence, Ivan	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Lawson, Nigel	Rossi, Hugh
Durant, Tony	Lee, John	Rost, Peter
Dykes, Hugh	Le Marchant, Spencer	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Scott, Nicholas
Eggar, Timothy	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Elliott, Sir William	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Emery, Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Eyre, Reginald	Loveridge, John	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lyell, Nicholas	Shersby, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell	McCrindle, Robert	Silvester, Fred
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Macfarlane, Neil	Sims, Roger
Farr, John	MacGregor, John	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, Anthony	MacKay, John (Argyll)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)	McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Speed, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Speller, Tony
Fookes, Miss Janet	McQuarrie, Albert	Spence, John
Forman, Nigel	Madel, David	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Major, John	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Fox, Marcus	Marland, Paul	Sproat, lain
Fraser, RI Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Marlow, Tony	Squire, Robin
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stainton, Keith
Fry, Peter	Marten, Neil (Banbury)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Mates, Michael	Stanley, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Steen, Anthony
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)	Mawby, Ray	Stevens, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Goodlad, Alastair	Mayhew, Patrick	Stradling Thomas, J.
Gorst, John	Mellor, David	Tapsell, Peter
Gow, Ian	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Tebbit, Norman
Gray, Hamish	Miscampbell, Norman	Temple-Morris, Peter
Greenway, Harry	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Grieve, Percy	Moate, Roger	Thompson, Donald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Molyneux, James	Thornton, Malcolm
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Monro, Hector	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Montgomery, Fergus	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Grist, Ian	Moore, John	Trippier, David
Grylls, Michael	Morgan, Geraint	Trotter, Neville
Gummer, John Selwyn	Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Viggers, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mudd, David	Waddington, David
Hannam, John	Murphy, Christopher	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Haselhurst, Alan	Myles, David	Wakeham, John
Hastings, Stephen	Neale, Gerrard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Hawksley, Warren	Needham, Richard	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Hayhoe, Barney	Nelson, Anthony	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Heddle, John	Neubert, Michael	Wall, Patrick
Henderson, Barry	Newton, Tony	Waller, Gary
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Normanton, Tom	Walters, Dennis
Hicks, Robert	Nott, Rt Hon John	Ward, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Onslow, Cranley	Watson, John
Hill, James	Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Osborn, John	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wheeler, John
Hooson, Tom	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Whitney, Raymond
Hordern, Peter	Parris, Matthew	Wickenden, Keith
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)	Patten, John (Oxford)	Wilkinson, John
Howell. Ralph (North Norfolk)	Pattie, Geoffrey	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Howells, Geraint	Pawsey, James	Winterton, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Penhaligon, David	Wolfson, Mark
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Pink, Rt Bonner	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Hurd, Hon Douglas	Pollock, Alexander
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Porter, George	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Jessel, Toby	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Mr. Carol Mather
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Price, David (Eastleigh)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 17, line 40, at end insert— ' (4) A person who is an official of a trade union by virtue only of having been elected or appointed to be a representative of some of the members of the union shall be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) above as representing only those members; but otherwise an official of a trade union shall be regarded for those purposes as representing all its members.'.—[Mr. Prior.]