§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
A majority of the employers on an industrial training board could get together and conspire so that when the levy became renewable they moved for a nil levy, the effect of which would be to kill the board.
If the Government want that, they should say so. If they do not, they should accept the amendment and sweep paragraph 4 from the schedule. Otherwise, there will be serious consequences for everyone engaged in the industrial training boards and for the future of the boards, which, presumably, the Secretary of State wants to retain.
§ Mr. Craigen
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) piloted paragraph 4 through the Committee in the last stage of its proceedings, and the Minister fully supported him. I recall the Minister's saying that it was the only time during the whole Committee proceedings that he had agreed with the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor).
A fundamental change was made by the paragraph to the constitution of the boards. The hon. Member for Fareham is a former editor of Crossbow. He certainly scored a bull's eye for the Government in producing this result in Committee. However, in doing so he brought to an end the co-determination that has existed within our system of industrial training boards during the past 15 or 16 years.
I wondered why parity of representation had been introduced in the original 1964 legislation. I checked and found that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a previous incarnation, was Parliamentary Secretary the then Ministry of Labour. He took the view that both sides of industry had a contribution to make to the improvement of training and that it was therefore important that there should be equity of representation on the boards.
In moving from a statutory to a voluntary system, I hope that the Government know what they are doing by accepting this major change in the constitution of the boards. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster pointed out, the employers need only to move for a nil levy to produce effective voluntary euthanasia for industrial training boards.
I have always taken the view that training boards can be improved; they are by no means perfect institutions. The trouble is that opinion within the country, particularly in management circles, has never accepted that training is an instrument for improving the productivity and performance, and indeed the personality, of the company or organisation. I very much regret this move. I hope the Government will have second thoughts about its full implications.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown
I looked through the proceedings of the Committee to try to find an explanation for the amendment, but I could not find one. Those not privileged to serve on the Committee have the duty of going out to industry, in my case the furniture industry, to explain to trade unions, which have played such a vital role in making the industry viable and with which manufacturers have a good relationship, why the Government decided that only employers' views and votes would be taken into account.
It is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to come clean. Why can we not continue the principle of a shared 356 decision? The Secretary of State reiterated that he places complete faith in industry being a partnership, with workers and management playing their role and with each side having an equal say. The Secretary of State says that he will continue this approach by allowing the development of confidence between employers and trade unions. How does he justify paragraph 4? That must inevitably exclude people. It must mean that a decision will be taken by employers and everyone else involved in the enterprise will simply be told what the decision is. I can see no justification for paragraph 4.
It is said that employers pay the levy, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said, they pay it as a company and not as individuals. Therefore, it is a company responsibility, and we must remember that a company comprises management and workers. All those working in the enterprise ought to have an equal opportunity to have their say. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell those of us who were not on the Committee why he believes that the ordinary principles of shared responsibility are not acceptable and why employers should be given a specific opportunity to do what they like.
Counter decisions taken in smoke-filled rooms somewhere else may be guided, as it were, by groups and authorities from outside. Organisations such as Aims for Freedom may give briefings and try to organise; they would become a kind of seventh estate. This is a dangerous practice. The House would be unwise to allow all of paragraph 4 to remain in the Bill. I intend to vote in favour of the amendment. The Secretary of State must tell us exactly why a change is needed.
§ Mr. Prior
If I direct my remarks chiefly to amendment No. 15, it does not mean that I have not taken into account the other amendments on the Notice Paper. To explain, present legislation provides that an industrial training board must consist of a chairman, an equal number of people appointed after consultation with organisations of employers and workers in the industry respectively—that is, an equal number of employer representatives and worker representatives—and people appointed after consultation with the Education Ministers. There may or may not be a deputy chairman as well. Only employer and worker members may vote on any matter relating to the imposition of a levy.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 1, which was inserted at the end of the Committee stage by a Back-Bench amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), requires in addition that no matter related to the imposition of a levy can be decided except in accordance with the votes of the majority of the employer members. In other words, when the levy is decided at the appropriate time of the year, a majority of the employers and the employer members of the board have to vote in favour of it.
Hon. Members have asked me why the Government accepted that amendment. I shall try to explain why. The Government believe that employers in an industry should pay for the operating costs of a training board for that industry, just as they would have to do if training in their industry were covered by a voluntary organisation. Under the legislation, employers in due course will bear all the costs of the board—operating costs, as well as the costs of providing training and paying grants, except any derived from Exchequer funds.
357 It is right, therefore, that employer representatives on boards should not be forced against their will to go along with the key decisions of boards about raising money from employers. We therefore believe that it is right to strengthen the position of employers on boards. That accords with the basic principle of "He who pays the piper calls the tune".
One of the general criticisms of training boards is that they have wasted money. They are not perfect, but nor are they imperfect. However, it is only reasonable that those who have to provide the cash—it makes no difference whether they are managers or employers—should be responsible for the manner in which a company's money is spent. They want good value for that money. It is therefore not unreasonable that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why we accepted my hon. Friend's amendment.
Employer organisations have told me that their representatives on boards should be given greater power than heretofor. They contend that unless their representatives are in dominant position they would not trust boards not to pursue policies inappropriate to their industries' needs and not to run their operations at excessive cost. I have been pressed very hard to give employers a majority seat on boards. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) wants. I am not prepared to go that far. I take the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) having been the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a contribution that both sides of industry—employers and employee representatives—can make together.
I believe that the structure now proposed in the Bill is appropriate. It gives employers protection against excessive demands for money, provided that they organise themselves to make use of that protection, while at the same time preserving the tripartite structure of boards. To go further would reduce the proper influence of unions and education interests in training and risk losing their support at a time when we want their co-operation in securing essential reforms.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we have given employers a way of throttling boards by allowing them to veto levy proposals. That is an unreal suggestion. The reality is that members of training boards have a common interest in seeing that adequate training is provided and in agreeing sensible levy proposals to secure the necessary training provision. That common interest is likely to be strongest in those industries where boards are retained, since those may well be industries in which the demand for training in skills cannot be satisfied on a voluntary basis. Employer representatives on boards have a particular interest in seeing that all employers contribute to training provisions and that companies are not constrained by a lack of skilled labour. The appointment of membership of boards is in my hands, and I shall want to appoint people who have a commitment to adequate training, not people intent on minimising the short-term cost to employers.
In the last resort I have powers, reinforced by the Bill, to insist on satisfactory levy proposals and to declare a board that fails to agree to be in default. In that event I could replace the recalcitrant members.
358 The right hon. Member for Doncaster and his hon. Friends are not justified in their argument. I believe that we are taking the right step. It destroys neither the structure of the boards nor their composition. It gives employers that extra power, if they want to discipline themselves, to keep the cost to the minimum.
If we are to retain a number of statutory boards, which hon. Members have suggested we need, we have to build up the confidence of employers that the boards will be run efficiently, economically and non-bureaucratically. With that in mind we accepted an amendment in Committee. I commend that amendment and the present position to the House.
It would be a great mistake to think that the structure of the boards was absolutely right before. We need to give a little extra power and discipline to the employers. I hope that they will use that power wisely in the interests of training. The country cannot afford to waste money, nor can industry. If employers spend more money on training and less on the frivolities, we shall be better pleased with the result.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
With the leave of the House, I should like to respond. The Secretary of State ignored all that I said when he talked about he who pays the piper. It is sometimes assumed that the employer pays out of his pocket, when he is in fact using company money. The company is a corporate entity consisting not only of shareholders but of workers and managers.
The 1964 Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government with support from both sides of the House, did not make the type of provision contained in the Bill. There was a reality of power sharing to bring together the experience and confidence of both sides of industry. The Secretary of State has been deeply divisive. His proposal is disruptive and against an agreed bipartisan policy.
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's confidence that he is responsible for making appointments to the boards. Ministers cannot have sufficient familiarity wath the people whom they appoint. Ministers take advice from people nominated by the organisations involved. Names are put forward by officials. I do not quarrel with that, but I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to convince the House that he will know who he is appointing.
Does the Secretary of State really believe that the trade unions will be happy to send their busy, highly professional, full-time trade union officials, who have enormous demands on their time, to sit on industrial training boards, where they will be neutered and where their role will be only advisory? The right hon. Gentleman's speech tonight was yet another attack on the trade union movement.
§ Mr. Hooley
The Secretary of State's statement is about the most insulting reference to trade union representatives that I have heard. He said that they are not concerned with efficiency, economy or the proper running of the boards, and that financial control must be exclusively in the hands of the employers. He implied that all trade union workers have no financial stake in the industry in which they work, when their work creates the funds to finance the boards. It is insulting to suggest that they should have no say in the control of the levy. It deliberately creates two classes of member on the board. One group takes the decision about the finances, and the 359 other group sits around and advises on certain matters. However, once the financial structure is determined, whatever can be done by the board is limited by that.
I am not inclined to share the fears of some of my colleagues that the employers may declare a nil levy and destroy the board. They would realise the political repercussions of doing so, which would be serious. However, it is insulting to suggest that trade union representatives on the board are not concerned about economy, efficiency and the proper running of training in their industry. The Secretary of State made a disgraceful speech.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 249.362
|Division No. 215]||[10.20 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Adams, Allen||Ewing, Harry|
|Allaun, Frank||Field, Frank|
|Anderson, Donald||Fitch, Alan|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Flannery, Martin|
|Ashton, Joe||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ford, Ben|
|Beith, A. J.||Forrester, John|
|Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)||Foster, Derek|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Foulkes, George|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)||George, Bruce|
|Bradley, Tom||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Ginsburg, David|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Golding, John|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)||Graham, Ted|
|Buchan, Norman||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Grimond, Rt Hon J.|
|Campbell, Ian||Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Carmichael, Neil||Haynes, Frank|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Home Robertson, John|
|Coleman, Donald||Homewood, William|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Hooley, Frank|
|Conlan, Bernard||Howell, Rt Hon D.|
|Cook, Robin F.||Huckfield, Les|
|Cowans, Harry||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Craigen, J. M.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Crowther, J. S.||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Cryer, Bob||John, Brynmor|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Deakins, Eric||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Dempsey, James||Lambie, David|
|Dewar, Donald||Lamond, James|
|Dixon, Donald||Leighton, Ronald|
|Dobson, Frank||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Dormand, Jack||Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)|
|Douglas, Dick||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Litherland, Robert|
|Dunn, James A.||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Lyon, Alexander (York)|
|Eastham, Ken||Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||McKelvey, William|
|English, Michael||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Maclennan, Robert|
|McNally, Thomas||Sheerman, Barry|
|McTaggart, Robert||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Magee, Bryan||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)||Short, Mrs Renée|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)||Silverman, Julius|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Skinner, Dennis|
|Maxton, John||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Spearing, Nigel|
|Meacher, Michael||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Stallard, A. W.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Stoddart, David|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Stott, Roger|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)||Strang, Gavin|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Morton, George||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Tilley, John|
|Newens, Stanley||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Wainwright, R.(Colne V)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Welsh, Michael|
|Palmer, Arthur||White, Frank R.|
|Parry, Robert||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Pendry, Tom||Whitlock, William|
|Penhaligon, David||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Prescott, John||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Race, Reg||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)|
|Richardson, Jo||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Winnick, David|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Woodall, Alec|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Robertson, George||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Rodgers, Rt Hon William||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rooker, J. W.||Mr. Joseph Dean and|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Adley, Robert||Burden, Sir Frederick|
|Alexander, Richard||Butcher, John|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Cadbury, Jocelyn|
|Ancram, Michael||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Arnold, Tom||Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston N)||Chalker, Mrs. Lynda|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)||Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Chapman, Sydney|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Churchill, W. S.|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Best, Keith||Cockeram, Eric|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Colvin, Michael|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Cope, John|
|Blackburn, John||Corrie, John|
|Body, Richard||Costain, Sir Albert|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Critchley, Julian|
|Bowden, Andrew||Crouch, David|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Dean, Paul (North Somerset)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bright, Graham||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Brittan, Leon||Dover, Denshore|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)||Durant, Tony|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Eggar, Tim|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Elliott, Sir William|
|Buck, Antony||Eyre, Reginald|
|Budgen, Nick||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Faith, Mrs Sheila||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Farr, John||Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus|
|Fell, Anthony||Mawby, Ray|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles||Mellor, David|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Fry, Peter||Moate, Roger|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Monro, Hector|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Moore, John|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Mudd, David|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Murphy, Christopher|
|Gorst, John||Myles, David|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Neale, Gerrard|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Greenway, Harry||Neubert, Michael|
|Grieve, Percy||Newton, Tony|
|Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)||Normanton, Tom|
|Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Grist, Ian||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Osborn, John|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)|
|Hannam, John||Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Parris, Matthew|
|Hawksley, Warren||Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Henderson, Barry||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Hicks, Robert||Percival, Sir Ian|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Pollock, Alexander|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Porter, Barry|
|Hooson, Tom||Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)|
|Hordern, Peter||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)|
|Hurd, Hon Douglas||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon patrick||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Jessel, Toby||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Rossi, Hugh|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Rost, Peter|
|Kimball, Marcus||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Scott, Nicholas|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Knox, David||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Lamont, Norman||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Lang, Ian||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Shepherd, Richard|
|Latham, Michael||Shersby, Michael|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Silvester, Fred|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Sims, Roger|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Speed, Keith|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sproat, Iain|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Squire, Robin|
|Loveridge, John||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Stanley, John|
|McCrindle, Robert||Steen, Anthony|
|MacGregor, John||Stevens, Martin|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Stokes, John|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Tapsell, Peter|
|Madel, David||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Major, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Marland, Paul||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Marlow, Tony||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Thompson, Donald||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Wells, Bowen|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Whitney, Raymond|
|Trippier, David||Wickenden, Keith|
|Viggers, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Waddington, David||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Wakeham, John||Wolfson, Mark|
|Waldegrave, Hon William||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Walker, B. (Perth)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.|
|Wall, Patrick||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Waller, Gary||Mr. Robert Boscawen and|
|Ward, John||Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]10.32 pm
§ Mr. Jones
The economic background against which the Bill must work is truly daunting. The most recent memorandum by Sir Richard O'Brien to the National Economic Development Council postulates that almost 1 million jobs were lost in 1980, that 700,000 of those jobs were lost in manufacturing industries, that the recession is much deeper than past ones, that labour shedding continues apace and on an unprecedented scale, that next year 713,000 18-year-olds and under will present themselves to the labour market and that unemployment might level off at 3 million. That shows the magnitude of the task of recovery. The question to be asked is: can the Bill help in that task of recovery?
We believe that the Bill is dangerous and that it has trampled the MSC into the ground by denuding it of powers in clause 1. It has angered much of industry by stating that operating costs should be returned to employers next year. In addition, the Bill has offended the tripartite participants in training by its sudden appearance at the turn of the year and in advance of the MSC's sectoral review of the training boards.
The Government have ignored the MSC by ignoring the main recommendation of the report "Outlook on Training", which stated that radical changes in the existing structures of training industry should not be affected. The Bill runs counter to that.
In addition, 23 training board chairmen have denounced the measure, and the TUC and CBI have united in criticising it. Mr. Ken Graham, the TUC assistant general secretary, has said that not one clause of the Bill will improve training and the supply of skilled manpower. This measure, which embraces voluntarism, will not cope with the critical training demands springing from the computer revolution in Western Europe. Additionally, the 1 per cent. ceiling on levy is arbitrary and mistaken.
There is an alarming drop in the number of apprenticeships in industry. This year it is 60,000, which is a 25 per cent. decline from the 80,000 last year. Ely September one in two school leavers will face only the dole. It is estimated that in 1982, it will be one in three. It is no exaggeration to say that the provision of apprenticeships faces imminent collapse in some areas. Companies have already to started to cut back on apprenticeships, and our industrial seed corn is at risk.
Even worse, in the midst of the crisis, the Government have turned on the MSC. It is to suffer a cut in staff of 363 1,700 and over three years will lose £80 million funding. The staff and money cut would have helped to give a better service to the growing army of the unemployed. The disabled, ethnic minorities and the long-term unemployed will feel the harsh effects of the cuts.
The Government have avoided answering basic questions. I ask again why they aim to scrap training boards, except in a few key sectors? If they work, why deny them to the rest of the economy? If they do not, why impose them on key sectors? Why have the Government opted to reintroduce voluntarism, which was discredited and abandoned by a Tory Government in 1964? What arrangements will be made for health and training under the voluntary system that the right hon. Gentleman is ushering in? Why will the Government not give an assurance that the £50 million that is to be withdrawn will be spent on training?
We protest that throughout the Bill's progress we have not had answers to the fundamental questions that we have persistently asked. The Ministers have wriggled, prevaricated and dodged. The Bill is a disgrace and must be defeated.
§ Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)
I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Third Reading. My right hon. Friend said that the training boards were neither perfect nor imperfect. The Bill recognises that. It gives the Government the flexibility to have full statutory boards and to employ voluntary arrangements.
Hon. Members who have received representations from training boards will be aware that all is not well. I have a wad of letters from companies supporting the work of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board. Equally, many small companies in my constituency have had very sharp words to say about some of the other training boards.
My particular concern is with the Engineering Industry Training Board, which employs about 400 of my constituents in Watford at its headquarters and also at its Eastern and Southern regional offices. It is the largest of the training boards, covering about 3 million employees and about 25,000 firms. The engineering industry provides 14 per cent. of all employment in this country, no less than 12 per cent. of our GNP and £20 billion annual exports for the United Kingdom. It includes not only mechanical and electrical engineering training but key sectors such as aerospace, electronics and North Sea oil engineering and construction. There can, therefore, be no doubt that this is a vital sector, and I and my constituents are in no doubt that the statutory position of the Engineering Industry Training Board is essential to its success.
There are two matters on which I am glad to say that the management of the EITB and the unions are in agreement in my constituency. The first is the return of operating cost funding to the industry. This was welcomed by the APEX branch of the EITB in a memorandum laid before the Employment Committee in February this year. Also in February this year the management wrote to me saying:We would like our industry to be in control of the EITB. We want to be a service to industry and not an instrument of Government.The transfer to funding by the industry, however, raises a serious problem for the EITB, which I wish to put to my 364 hon. Friend. The Government have said that they intend to reduce support for industrial training boards in 1981–82 and to withdraw it completely in 1982–83. As things stand, this would mean that the EITB would need to be self-financing from 1 January 1982. If the decision about the board's future is not known until July, very little time will be available for it to decide on what basis the money is to be raised and to carry out the necessary consultations with the industry. Indeed, if the levy is to be in excess of 1 per cent., I understand that an affirmative resolution of both Houses will be needed. If things run as they seem to be scheduled at present, all of those decisions will have to be taken by the board in six weeks if the scheme is to be published before the start of the next training year. I very much hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give some indication that he will be sympathetic about the timing of the transfer.
My constituents rightly believe that they are playing a vital role in one of the key sectors on which the country's future depends. The memorandum submitted by the APEX branch of the EITB in Watford ends with these words:We believe that our members, in working for the EITB, perform a vital job for the future survival of the engineering industry in Britain. We are proud to do that job and we wish to see it continued and extended in the future. We believe it is a job for which adequate financial and other resources must be found.I am glad to say that those words were echoed by the management of the EITB, who wrote to me on 5 June this year as follows:Now that it has been publicly acknowledged by the engineering Employers Federation and most engineering sector working parties of NEDO among others that voluntary training arrangements in the engineering industry would be impracticable, we are looking forward with some confidence and some impatience to the ministerial decision about the future shape of the board. It is high time we were able to give our undivided attention to our raison d'être—the stimulation of high quality and efficient training in the engineering industry.I hope that Opposition Members will refrain from taking such a frivolous attitude to matters that are extremely important to many of my constituents, in particular to members of the APEX trade union. The letter ends:We hope that the legislation will progress without undue delay and that we shall have a clear and positive statement from the Secretary of State about our future before the end of this parliamentary Session.I hope that the House will do as the Engineering Industry Training Board wishes and give the Bill a Third Reading with due dispatch.
§ 10.40 pm.
§ Mr. Hooley
The Government have spent a lot of their time in the past two years in destroying or undermining what Labour Governments achieved. The Bill is unique, because this time the Government are deliberately setting out to destroy what previous Conservative Governments enacted.
The basis of the statutory training boards was laid by the Conservative Government's enactment in 1964 and put into effect very largely by the Labour Government who succeeded them. Those arrangements were then superseded by Conservative legislation in 1973, which is the foundation of the present structure of the statutory training system in this country, and it is those two pieces of Conservative legislation, carried through the House by Conservative Governments, that will be undermined by the Bill.
365 Not only have the Government ignored the experience that led them to put through that legislation in 1964 and 1973; they have deliberately ignored the advice of the Manpower Services Commission, which they created in the 1973 legislation. The MSC carried through a wide-ranging review in 1979–80 of the present structure. It did not recommend anything remotely resembling the provisions of the Bill, and that review has been ignored. In effect the Government have said to the MSC "Go back and produce another review that will please us and satisfy our ideological prejudices."
A serious crisis is developing in craft and other training in industry. The frivolity of Conservative Members is regrettable. Many of them have come in at the end of a long debate in which they have taken no part and have listened to none of the speeches. They have come here to cackle and chatter at the end of a long debate on a matter of fundamental importance to the economy of this country. The skills and training of our manpower and womanpower in this country are of the greatest possible importance, and a crisis is developing.
In Sheffield, the Engineering Industry Training Board has a splendid training centre in Petre Street, with places for 300 apprentices. It is a fine building, with a fine staff and good equipment. It would normally expect to get 280 or 300 apprentices sent to it by engineering firms in Sheffield every year. This coming year it is expecting 40 at the most. That is one-seventh of the craft apprentice training that it would normally expect to take in year by year. That is the extent of the training crisis caused by the slump and the recession engineered by the economic policies of the Government.
What does the Bill do? Far from suggesting that the structure created by Conservative Governments in 1964 and 1973 be strengthened, that more money be spent and that the system be enhanced, it is suggesting a throwback to the so-called voluntary system, which the Government had to admit in 1964 had failed the nation and had to be replaced.
Why, therefore, have we before us this wretched and miserable Bill? There are two reasons. First, there are the objections of the Poujadiste small business mentality, which does not like to be involved in training, does not like statutory obligations, and does not want to be bothered with its duties to train the manpower of this country. As has been said, by and large, the big companies have carried out and are still carrying out training. However, many small companies do not want to be bothered. It is significant that the protests, moans and groans of Conservative Members throughout the debate have reflected the retailing and the hotel and catering industries. Such industries have rotten training and industrial relations records. They have never shown much interest in training or in looking after their employees.
The second reason for the Bill is the so-called saving of £50 million. The Government are obsessed with penny notebook economics. They say that if the Treasury spends £50 million it is public expenditure and therefore wrong. If £50 million is pushed on to industry, the Government say that it is not public expenditure and that it is all right. In real terms, the result is the same. If the country spends £50 on organising training the general effect on the economy will be the same whether the money has come from the Treasury or from the pockets of industrialists. With this wretched Government's penny notebook economics, they claim that there is a £50 million saving. 366 If the Government are arguing that by transferring the money it will not be spent, that is the same as saying that the volume of training will decline. If the money is not spent, training will suffer.
The Bill is destructive and unnecessary. It has caused grave disquiet to many of the more responsible and thoughtful Conservative Members. On Second Reading we heard a catalogue of complaints from Conservative Back Benchers. In addition, in Committee there were signs of a similar disquiet. The Bill is unnecessary and damaging, and I shall take great pleasure in voting against it.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown
I support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I shall not go over the same arguments. However, the Government's attitude has been made clear. The Secretary of State has always argued that he understood that training involved an agreement or partnership in industry. He has always argued that training would be carried out properly only if all those involved were willing to take part in it.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has made the most appalling attack on trade union representatives. I do not know how he can justify the argument that only the employer's representatives can be objective. It is an extraordinary assertion. I intervened earlier and asked for an explanation, but he did not give me one. He merely asserted that he who paid the piper called the tune. We have often heard that sentiment expressed. I tried to point out that employees pay the piper as much as anyone else. For example, safety is an important element. Training involves learning to understand one another. Therefore, to argue that only the employers' representatives have the acumen to understand business issues, that they alone will be objective when determining how much money to spend and that they alone have the ability to judge what has to be done is to make an appalling claim that cannot be substantiated.
The claim cannot be substantiated by citing the furniture industry. The Furniture Industry Training Board has an excellent record. Both sides of the board have agreements. No one has ever suggested that trade union representatives cannot judge the work to be done. It has never been suggested that they were mischievous enough to try to charge more money. Such a claim could not be proved. The Secretary of State said that more money should be spent on training and less on frivolity. The chairmen of industrial training boards are usually employers. That was one of the criteria used when making appointments.
Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that Mr. Burton—who was a business man in the furniture trade—has been raising money and spending it on frivolity rather than on training? I do not know where he is spending it. I have no evidence of that if he has been doing it. The charge that the Minister has made in the House must be supported by him. He has done much harm to industrial relations, and he has set back industrial training a long way.
I cannot advise my colleagues in the trade union to be interested in co-operating if the Secretary of State's view is that board officials are wastrels, that they do not understand the business, and that they can simply be told how much money they can have and after that no one is 367 interested. If a board is given insufficient money to carry out its task, what is the point of discussing the board's work? It will have no role, however much money will be raised.
We are in a crisis, and I regret that. I am not against boards being changed, advanced or improved. That must be done. I started by viewing the Bill in an objective frame of mind. I wanted to see whether there was anything that we could do to improve the status of industrial training boards. As time has passed I have become utterly disenchanted. The answers from Ministers have been evasive and shifty, even to the few questions that I have asked. The Minister could have been helpful and have answered my four questions. It would not have taken long to explain them. He has done a mountain of harm. I shall vote against the Bill tonight, not because I object to it, but because I object to the way in which the Government have produced it and how Ministers have behaved.
I have read all the reports of the Committee proceedings and, as I suggested in my intervention, I tried to find reasons for paragraph 4 of schedule 1. There are no such reasons in the reports. I asked the Minister whether he would do me the courtesy of explaining paragraph 4. He ignored my question. When I tried to intervene, he claimed pressure of time, that he had much to say and did not want to delay the House. Three sentences later he sat down.
My objection to the Bill is that the Government regard industrial training as a joke and believe that the Bill is what the Back Bench backwoodsmen want. They must understand that they are undermining and will make impossible further work in industrial relations and industrial training in industry. They have put the subject back a decade, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
§ Mr. Craigen
This is a bad Bill, and it has not improved during its progress through the House. It is the £50 million Bill, because the reason for it is to save public expenditure and avoid the necessity of giving Exchequer subsidies to industrial training boards. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that the Bill will prove to be a costly symbolism to British industry.
I have received a letter from an employer which sums it up. He sent a copy of it to the Secretary of State. Mr. William Nicol told me that he had read the reports of the nine sittings of Standing Committee D. He concluded by saying:The opposition won the debate, but regrettably lost the vote".
§ Mr. Foster
I hope that Conservative Members recognise that the Government's record on industrial training is disastrous and has been made worse by the Bill. At the time of the last general election we were paraded with the stage army of Saatchi and Saatchi employees pretending to be unemployed and telling us that Labour was not working and that one of the answers was that there would be a substantial increase in training and retraining. It was argued that we would have to sweep away all the non-jobs, that Britain was vastly overmanned and that we had to get rid of all the heavily subsidised jobs throughout British society.
368 The Government said that they would vastly increase training and retraining. But what has happened? The burden of taxation has increased, failing to galvanise us all into entrepreneurial activity. There has been no flowing of funds into the private sector. We now learn that the underlying rate of inflation is increasing as well. In the face of all those failures, when will we have the long-promised increase in training and retraining?
The Secretary of State has come forward with his training initiative, the objectives of which we approve, but at the same time he has brought forward this legislation, which will completely scupper his ability to deliver the goods. This is a disastrous Bill, which ought to be thrown out.
§ 11 pm
§ Mr. Eric G. Varley (Chesterfield)
Before commenting on the Bill, and now that we have reached its final stages in the House, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and six other colleagues who did so well in Committee in exposing the inadequacies of the Bill. It is a retrograde and damaging measure.
By persisting with the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have destroyed the bipartisan support on training that has built up between the two major political parties over many years. Since the 1964 Act the principle of expanded and statutory training provisions has had wide support, not only in the House, but among sensible people in the country.
It has never been our view—my hon. Friends brought this out during today's debate—that the structure of training boards, once established, should be set for all time. In the very nature of things there needs to be a periodic review, and some modifications of the boards may become necessary, but that should come about only through proper consultation and check, and only with proper examination by the MSC.
If that was the Government's only intention, no additional statutory powers would be necessary. However, the powers now being sought in the Bill are blunt and arbitrary. Tory Ministers could bludgeon through changes against the wishes and the best interests of the training boards. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how he hopes to proceed. Will he carry through changes merely for the sake of change and to satisfy some of the prejudices of his hon. Friends?
Even today both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary said that they wanted to extend the area of, and reliance upon, voluntary arrangements. Such bland assertions by the Secretary of State and his colleagues are unsupported by any of the facts. Such statements fly in the face of every scrap of experience not only in Britain but throughout the world and among our overseas competitors.
Worst of all, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill in advance of the review of training by the MSC, which it has been asked to complete later this year. That is a shabby and shameful way in which to treat the MSC. Also, the Government are determined to ignore the representations they have received from the chairmen of the industrial training boards. In other words, the collective view of men who have dedicated their time and experience to the training boards has been brushed aside.
369 Our economy has deteriorated at an unbelievable rate over the past two years. Now we are told by Ministers that there is to be some upturn, although I cannot see much evidence for it. Before too long, some stimulus will have to be given to the economy. There could not be a worse time in the history of our nation to plunge training provisions into doubt and uncertainty.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that in future men and women would need to be trained not once, not twice, but perhaps three times during their working lives. How on earth will that be accomplished on the basis of voluntarism and weekend training arrangements? During the past two years great damage has been inflicted on our nation. None of the damage is more unacceptable than this attack on our training systems. Putting people to work with skills is not only more productive, but makes for social cohesion and social harmony.
As a country, we shall pay a high price for undermining the work of the industrial training boards and for refusing to establish a powerful manpower training policy. The Bill will do a great deal of damage. It has created uncertainty. It will damage our training provisions and weaken the morale of those charged with providing training provisions. An incoming Labour Government will act with great urgency to repair the damage that the Bill has caused. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ 11.6 pm
§ Mr. Prior
The House has heard a lot of hot air from Opposition Members tonight. They talk about the damage that the Bill will cause, while knowing perfectly well that clause 1, which gives the Secretary of State and the Government the authority to decide whether training boards should continue in a voluntary or compulsory role, represents an amendment that the Labour Opposition moved in 1973. Now they say precisely the opposite. Why was it right in 1973 but wrong in 1981?
In 1973 the Labour Opposition thought that it must be right for the Government, at the end of the day, to be able to take decisions. Of course it must be right. However, it is also right that the Government should consult the Manpower Services Commission and that there should be a proper review, as is now being carried out. The Government have taken no decisions about the boards to be made voluntary and the boards that will remain compulsory and statutory, and will not do so until the review is completed and the results become available.
All the stuff that we have heard from Opposition Members is a lot of nonsense. The Government's position, as set out in the Bill, is that, following the review that the Manpower Services Commission is now conducting, sector by sector, the commission will report its views to the Government, in some cases, I hope, by the end of this month, and in all cases, I hope, by the end of July. The Government will consider the views put forward. I hope that it will be possible to make final announcements early in the autumn. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is right in saying that decisions need to be made about the future of training boards as quickly as is reasonably possible. That is my intention. I cannot tell my hon. Friend tonight whether certain boards will be kept in a statutory or voluntary capacity. A decision will depend largely upon the advice that I receive from the Manpower Services Commission.
370 The Bill—it is very much an enabling measure—enables the Government to transfer the operating cost from public expenditure to the industry. If there are satisfactory voluntary arrangements, the cost of the arrangements will be met by the industry anyhow. If statutory arrangements are to continue, as I expect will be the case in a number of key sectors and where boards are working well, the operating costs over a period—I have stated that we shall consider the issue of timing at the appropriate stage—will be transferred to the industry.
I believe that that is right. Industry has an important part to play in training, and it is right that the main impetus for training, should come from industry and that the cost should be borne by industry and not by Government. We in the House are rapidly getting into a position in which we think that only Governments know how to spend money and that unless we are spending the money it is not being properly spent. In effect, if industry spends this money it will spend it more carefully, more critically and more wisely than we would.
A complaint made time and again by chairmen of training boards is that there is to much bureaucracy. Whenever Government money is spent, there are three or four channels to ensure that it is spent in a way that is accountable to Parliament. They say that when they want to improve the wages or salary of a board employee the proposal has to go to the Manpower Services Commission, to the Department of Employment and to the Civil Service Department, and that it takes years for the most simple changes to be made. All that makes me believe that it is right that the operating costs should be transferred.
§ Mr. Garel-Jones
Will my right hon. Friend allow a degree of flexibility in the event that the consultations that need to be carried out on the raising of the levy in the engineering industry make it extremely difficult for the industry to be self-financing by 1 January 1982?
§ Mr. Prior
I have said that we must look at the whole question of transferring operating costs, and I have given an undertaking that, although I want the review to be carried out on the basis that operating costs will be transferred, I would look at the question of timing when the decision is made on whether boards should remain statutory or become voluntary.
At a time of economic recession it is important to keep our training at a high level. One great advance is the publication issued by the Manpower Services Commission, on which sit educationalists, employers and trade unionists. For the first time they have got together to prepare this new training initiative, which can revolutionise our training.
It is no use saying that we are short of apprenticeships. We are, but the important thing is to train people for the right jobs as efficiently as we can. That is why we have to move away from an apprenticeship based on a period of years to an apprenticeship based on a standard, making more use of modular methods. We are short of apprenticeships, and this is a considerable worry to the Government. We are subsidising 25,000 apprenticeships with £30 million of Government money this year, and we might have to allocate further resources to that in the near future.
The new training initiative, what we are doing for young people in trying to get better vocational preparation and trying to turn the youth opportunities programme into 371 a proper training system for all young people who would not otherwise get training are considerable advances. All that, together with the enabling power that the Bill gives to the Government, will produce a sensible structure of voluntary and statutory training boards and training arrangements. I believe that the House should give the Bill a Third Reading with acclamation.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 224.374
|Division No. 216]||[11.14 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Dykes, Hugh|
|Alexander, Richard||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Eggar, Tim|
|Ancram, Michael||Elliott, Sir William|
|Arnold, Tom||Eyre, Reginald|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston N)||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Farr, John|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Fell, Anthony|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Best, Keith||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Blackburn, John||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Blaker, Peter||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Body, Richard||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fry, Peter|
|Bosoawen, Hon Robert||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Goodhart, Philip|
|Bright, Graham||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Brittan, Leon||Gorst, John|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Gow, Ian|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Greenway, Harry|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Grieve, Percy|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)|
|Buck, Antony||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Budgen, Nick||Grist, Ian|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Grylls, Michael|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Butcher, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Hannam, John|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)||Hastings, Stephen|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul||Hawksley, Warren|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Churchill, W. S.||Henderson, Barry|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Hicks, Robert|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Holland, Philip (Carlton)|
|Colvin, Michael||Hooson, Tom|
|Cope, John||Hordern, Peter|
|Corrie, John||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Critchley, Julian||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Crouch, David||Hurd, Hon Douglas|
|Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jessel, Toby|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Dover, Denshore||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Durant, Tony||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Kimball, Marcus||Raison, Timothy|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Rathbone, Tim|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)|
|Knox, David||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Lamont, Norman||Renton, Tim|
|Lang, Ian||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Latham, Michael||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Lee, John||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Rossi, Hugh|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Rost, Peter|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Loveridge, John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|McCrindle, Robert||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|MacGregor, John||Shepherd, Richard|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Shersby, Michael|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Silvester, Fred|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Sims, Roger|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Speed, Keith|
|Madel, David||Spence, John|
|Major, John||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Marland, Paul||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Marlow, Tony||Sproat, Iain|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Squire, Robin|
|Mates, Michael||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Mather, Carol||Stanley, John|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Steen, Anthony|
|Mawby, Ray||Stevens, Martin|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire)|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Stokes, John|
|Mellor, David||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Tapsell, Peter|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Tebbit, Norman|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Moate, Roger||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Monro, Hector||Thompson, Donald|
|Moore, John||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mudd, David||Trippier, David|
|Murphy, Christopher||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Myles, David||Viggers, Peter|
|Neale, Gerrard||Waddington, David|
|Needham, Richard||Wakeham, John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Neubert, Michael||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Newton, Tony||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.|
|Normanton, Tom||Wall, Patrick|
|Onslow, Cranley||Waller, Gary|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Ward, John|
|Osborn, John||Warren, Kenneth|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)||Wells, Bowen|
|Page, Richard (SW Herts)||Wheeler, John|
|Parkinson, Cecil||Whitney, Raymond|
|Parris, Matthew||Wickenden, Keith|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Wilkinson, John|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Wolfson, Mark|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Pollock, Alexander||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Lord J. Douglas-Hamilton and|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Mr. Selwyn Gummer.|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Abse, Leo||Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)|
|Adams, Allen||English, Michael|
|Allaun, Frank||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)|
|Anderson, Donald||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Ewing, Harry|
|Ashton, Joe||Faulds, Andrew|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Field, Frank|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Fitch, Alan|
|Beith, A. J.||Flannery, Martin|
|Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Bidwell, Sydneiy||Ford, Ben|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Forrester, John|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Foster, Derek|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)||Foulkes, George|
|Bradley, Tom||Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||George, Bruce|
|Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Buchan, Norman||Ginsburg, David|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Golding, John|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Campbell, Ian||Graham, Ted|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Cant, R. B.||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cohen, Stanley||Haynes, Frank|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Conlan, Bernard||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Cook, Robin F.||Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)|
|Cowans, Harry||Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)|
|Craigen, J. M.||Home Robertson, John|
|Crowther, J. S.||Homewood, William|
|Cryer, Bob||Hooley, Frank|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Howell, Rt Hon D.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Huckfield, Les|
|Davidson, Arthur||Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Deakins, Eric||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dempsey, James||John, Brynmor|
|Dewar, Donald||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Dixon, Donald||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)|
|Dobson, Frank||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Dormand, Jack||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Douglas, Dick||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Dubs, Alfred||Kerr, Russell|
|Dunn, James A.||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lambie, David|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Lamond, James|
|Eastham, Ken||Leighton, Ronald|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Litherland, Robert||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Ryman, John|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradfd W)||Sheerman, Barry|
|McCartney, Hugh||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|McElhone, Frank||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|McKelvey, William||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Silverman, Julius|
|Maclennan, Robert||Skinner, Dennis|
|McNally, Thomas||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Snape, Peter|
|McTaggart, Robert||Soley, Clive|
|Magee, Bryan||Spearing, Nigel|
|Marks, Kenneth||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stewart, Rt Hon D, (W Isles)|
|Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)||Stoddart, David|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Stott, Roger|
|Maxton, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Straw, Jack|
|Meacher, Michael||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)|
|Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)||Tilley, John|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Torney, Tom|
|Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Wainwright, R.(Colne V)|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Newens, Stanley||Weetch, Ken|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Welsh, Michael|
|O'Halloran, Michael||White, Frank R.|
|O'Neill, Martin||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Palmer, Arthur||Whitlock, William|
|Parker, John||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Parry, Robert||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Pendry, Tom||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Penhaligon, David||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)|
|Prescott, John||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Race, Reg||Winnick, David|
|Radice, Giles||Woodall, Alec|
|Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Richardson, Jo||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Mr. Donald Coleman and|
|Robertson, George||Mr. George Morton.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time and passed.