AWARDS AGAINST THIRD PARTIES

HC Deb 18 May 1982 vol 24 cc218-27

Mr. Crowther

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 18, after 'begins', insert 'and only if the tribunal is satisfied that the granting of the re pest would not give rise to a substantial potential for considerable disruption to the disadvantage of the firm and its workers as a whole,'. The amendment would restrict the circumstance s in which a trade union or individual trade unionists could be made joint respondents with the employer in a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal, where an employee had been dismissed for refusing to be a trade unionist. The amendment would allow the industrial tribunal to prevent a trade union or individual trade unionists from being joined in the action if the tribunal—which is an independent, neutral body—felt that such an action would cause further damage to industrial relations or cause disruption within the firm.

This is entirely consistent with the policy of my right hon. and hon. Friends throughout the Bill's long and tortuous progress. We have tried at every opportunity to reduce the potential damage to industrial relations which the Bill will cause. This provision is a further example of the way in which we are trying to reduce that danger.

The Employment Act 1980 allows an employer to join a third party in the action—whether that third party is a trade union or individual trade unionist—if the employer claims that he is subjected to some kind of pressure to dismiss the non-trade unionist who is taking him to the tribunal for unfair dismissal.

We opposed that in 1980. Nevertheless, it was written into the legislation. The present proposal goes much further and gives the power to make that decision to the individual who has been dismissed. It is no longer merely a matter for the employer to decide whether he thinks that the union should be involved; the person whom that employer has dismissed will now be able to make that decision.

He may have left that firm in an atmosphere of bitterness. He may feel that he has been pushed out by his former fellow employees, and he may also feel that his employer has let him down by giving in to that pressure. In other words, he has left with a chip on his shoulder and has no further interest in maintaining good relations in the firm that he has just left.

That is the proposal being written into the legislation. It will give that power to the dismissed employee even when the employer—for good reasons which he has no doubt closely examined—has decided that it is not in his interest for the trade union or individual shop stewards to be brought into the action. Power is being given to the dismissed employee to act not only against the trade union and his former fellow employees, but against his employer, who has decided that he does not want the union and employees brought into the case. That is a dangerous path to follow.

Two years ago, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—who has, unfortunately, left the Chamber—tried to write the same provision into the Employment Bill. He moved an amendment that would have included it. However, it was strenuously opposed by the then Under-Secretary of State, now Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew)—who made a strong speech against it. I drew the Committee's attention to the matter. Obviously Ministers were taken by surprise. It was clear from the look of incredulity on their faces that they had not realised what had happened in 1980. I appreciate that none of the three Ministers now responsible was in his post in 1980. Indeed, the same applies to all the Conservative Back-Bench Committee Members. However, none of them took the trouble to read the reports of the proceedings of that 1980 Standing Committee. If they had done so, they would have realised that the Government then strongly opposed the provision that they now seek to write into the Bill.

Given the time available, it would not be right to quote at length from the speeches made by the then Under-Secretary of State. However, it is reasonable to cite two or three sentences from his long and powerful speech. He said: First, it is the employer who is ultimately responsible for the dismissal and who is in the best position to know what considerations led him to dismiss the worker. It is right therefore that he should meet the primary claim of unfair dismissal rather than any third party … All that he is concerned with"— the dismissed employee— I suggest, is that he has been unfairly dismissed, that the tribunal has so found, and that he should be compensated according to law in consequence. I should have thought that that was a very reasonable position. A little later, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the dismissed employee and said: Since he can get the whole of his compensation from his former employer, there appears to be no real reason why he should be given the right to proceed against the union, with possible consequential disruptive effects for the employer's industrial relations. That is the key to the whole of our argument. Again, towards the end of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman said: there is a substantial potential here for considerable industrial disruption to the disadvantage of the firm and its workers as a whole, to say nothing of the employer himself."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 March 1980; c. 1062–72.] That was a powerful argument, and the hon. Member for Rochdale was soundly defeated in his attempt to write the provision into the Bill. It is now being introduced in the 1982 Bill.

I asked the present Under-Secretary of State what had changed since 1980 and what evidence had emerged in the last 18 months to show that the legislation needed to be changed. To my astonishment, I found that he had no evidence. All that he could say was: I should say that there has been continuing and growing concern over the closed shop.

Mr. Harold Walker

That is not relevant.

5.30 pm

Mr. Crowther

As my right hon. Friend says, it is not relevant. Even if it is relevant, it is not true. It is an expression of opinion. There is no fact behind it.

I am coming to a point to which the Secretary of State referred earlier this afternoon—the revelations in The Observer about Professor Gennard's report. It is the most comprehensive piece of evidence on the closed shop in existence. It is all very well for Ministers to say that it is not finished or ready for publication and is therefore not relevant to the debate, but I understood the Secretary of State to say earlier—and no doubt he will tell me if I have this wrong—that he had not even seen the report.

I now quote from what the Minister of State said in the Standing Committee. He said: Professor Gennard has sent drafts of his report to my Department. Indeed, had we not seen some of the results of his research, we should scarcely be able to compare them with the results of Miss Helen Jackson's research, about which the Opposition have been so scathing and which I mentioned in my letter to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West. Those drafts are now—and have been for some time—the subject of the discussion and detailed examination normal in commissioned research."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 March 1982; c. 218.] Whatever the Secretary of State may say, it is obvious from this that Ministers have spent much time carrying out a detailed examination of the report.

As the Secretary of State claims not to have seen it, although it is clear that his Minister of State has not only seen it but examined it in great detail, perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to tell us whether the quotations in The Observer are accurate.

Mr. Tebbit

I can help the hon. Gentleman immediately. "We", as used on that occasion, referred not to Ministers but to the Department generally, that is to the officials who had seen, in the course of preparing matter for publication, the work of Professor Gennard. It is not me or my colleagues who say that the work is not ready for publication and should not yet be published; it is Professor Gennard. When it is ready, and the professor thinks that it is ready, it will be published.

Mr. Crowther

I have no doubt that the House will attach what worth it thinks fit to that intervention by the Secretary of State. I think that it is worth nothing to suggest that Ministers have sat in their Department for weeks and weeks with the most important piece of work ever carried out on the closed shop, at a time when a Standing Committee spent 29 sittings examining the whole matter of industrial relations and trade unions, without looking at the report. I cannot believe that Ministers have not looked at the report.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

Á propos of what the Secretary of State has just said, how does my hon. Friend rate the chances of Professor Gennard's report being published before the Bill has completed its proceedings in the other place and this place?

Mr. Crowther

I am extremely doubtful whether it will be published, because it is becoming more and more obvious that it completely destroys the Government's case for the Bill.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that, because I have said plainly and clearly that when the professor says that the report is ready to be published it will be published. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have an opinion, but he is not intitled to accuse me of an untruth.

Mr. Crowther

I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of an untruth. I am just saying that I think that the delay in the publication may go on and on for so long that there may be another Secretary of State in office before it is published. However, the point has been made clearly—at least the inference is quite clear—that Professor Gennard's report undermines the purpose of this part of the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the report, does he not agree that the most extraordinary thing of all is that the Secretary of State has just asserted that, despite the fact that the material is in his Department, he has not looked at it? He has not seen the report, but he comes before Parliament with what are probably the most far-reaching statutory proposals in relation to the very matter with which the report deals. Is that not a matter on which the Secretary of State should feel culpable and guilty? Having had this report commissioned at the expense of £60,000 of taxpayers' money, he ignores it and comes to the House with proposals that dramatically affect industrial relations without taking the trouble to read the report in advance.

Mr. Crowther

My right hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. If the Secretary of State had a conscience, it would no doubt be a guilty one. I have never seen any evidence that he has a conscience anyway. Therefore, I doubt whether he has a sense of guilt.

The point is that it is now crystal clear, whatever the Secretary of State may say, that the evidence, such as it is—and it may be considerable, although we have not been given the benefit of seeing it—supports the view that we have expressed, and opposes the view that the Government have expressed. The danger of considerable disruptions in public relations is therefore all the greater.

Mr. Dixon

In Committee, when we were discussing clause 1, did not the Ministers refer to the number involved in those entitled to this rough draft compensation and to the money for unfair dismissal, and quote a number of phrases from Professor Gennard?

Mr. Crowther

My hon. Friend is correct. They use this as the basis for what turned out to be a completely scurrilous estimate of 400. They later toned it down. They said that they started from this basis and then found that there were various things wrong.

I must not accuse the Secretary of State of saying something that is not true. If he says that Ministers have never seen the report, I must accept that. Presumably someone in the Department has shovelled little pieces of paper over to them, as they did with bewildering regularity in Committee. No doubt this is where they have the information. Perhaps it would have been better if they had looked at the report and drew proper conclusions from it, as we are seeking to do today from what little information we have been able to gather.

Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-le-Street)

Perhaps Ministers do not want to be confused by the facts.

Mr. Crowther

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Professor Gennard's report may be full of all sorts of interesting and even devastating facts, but what does it have to do with the amendment? We are discussing the request for awards against third parties. I submit that we have strayed far from the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the report has something to do with the awards. However, as I think that we are all in ignorance of the report, perhaps we should move on to a different tack.

Mr. Crowther

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reason that I mentioned the report was that in Committee I was anxious to find out how the Government had changed their position from 1980. The only explanation that I or the Committee could get from the Under-Secretary of State was: I should say that there has been continuing and growing concern over the closed shop."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 20 April 1982; c. 1082.] On the basis of that sentence, where is the evidence of the "growing concern"? The only evidence that we have—the Gennard report—tends to show the opposite. That is why I felt it relevant to mention the matter. There is no other justification for putting this provision in the Bill. It provides a considerable incentive to troublemakers. Now, not only will they be able to take their employers for a ride to the extent of £31,000; they will be able to involve trade unions and their former fellow employees in the action.

Mr. Neale

Does the hon. Member for Rotheram (Mr. Crowther) agree that it gives another incentive to the trade union movement? In a contract of employment between an employer and an employee, if something occurs which means that the employee does not wish to leave his employment and the employer does not wish him to leave and feels that he has no grounds to get rid of the employee, yet the trade union feels strongly that the employee should go, why cannot the employee sue the trade union in any complaint that he takes up?

Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that, under his amendment, the trade union would have every incentive to threaten the most enormous industrial disruption in order to frighten off a tribunal?

Mr. Crowther

I gave the answer to that question when I quoted a few sentences from a speech by the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment two years ago. It provides the complete answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale).

The right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) used the word "sanctions" in an earlier debate. He has let the cat out of the bag. I always believed that, in a case of unfair dismissal, the tribunal's job was to award compensation. Now the right hon. Gentleman is talking about sanctions. In other words, a penalty is to be imposed. That was an extremely interesting expression that I have not heard any Minister use, but which has given the game away.

Mr. Prentice

I hope that in practice the Bill will work in such a way that trade unions will be discouraged—which is a sanction—from trying to force people out of their jobs because they do not belong to a trade union in an organisation where a closed shop has not been legitimised by ballot. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), in his fairly lengthy speech, has not justified why he wishes trade unions to get off the hook of accepting the responsibility for acting in that irresponsible way.

Mr. Crowther

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be happy about employers unfairly dismissing people for any other reason, but he wishes to provide a sanction against them doing it for this reason. That difference, to which attention was drawn in the debate, is relevant to this amendment.

An enormous inducement is now provided to those who have been described in the past as bounty hunters to resign from the trade union knowing perfectly well that they will lose their jobs. For example, it is unthinkable for a non-trade unionist to work down a coal mine. There is no signed agreement about that. It is simply understood. Any coal miner who resigned from the National Union of Mineworkers would know that he would be dismissed. Under the terms of the Bill, he knows that he could take both the National Coal Board and the NUM to the tribunal and expect to receive compensation of up to £31,000. That is why we say that some safeguards should be provided by an independent neutral body such as the tribunal.

Mr. Harold Walker

Perhaps I have not followed my hon. Friend's speech with my usual care, but he has not made the strong point that, for the first time, the regulation of industrial relations has been taken out of the hands of both the employers and the trade unions and put into the hands of a third party, who may be a bounty-hunting maverick.

Mr. Crowther

That is correct. I believe that I had already expressed that, although perhaps not in the same terms as my right hon. Friend. As in other parts of the Bill, the power to cause disruption is being handed over to third parties. We find that distasteful. That is certainly the case in the group of clauses dealing with the closed shop and compensation for non-union membership. An opportunity to cause immense damage to industrial relations is being provided for those who may be tempted by the enormous sums of money that will be available.

5.45 pm

The House now has an opportunity to reduce, to some extent, the damage that those clauses will cause. It can reduce what the Minister of State, Home Office—when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Employment in 1980—called the "potential for considerable industrial disruption". Those words must be remembered, because he was speaking for the same Government. Now the Government appear to be quite happy to provide that potential and to give an opportunity to trouble makers or to mavericks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster rightly said. The House can restrict the danger of that happening.

This is a modest amendment. We say simply that the industrial tribunal should be able to consider the proposal to allow a complainant to bring in a third party. Only if the tribunal is satisfied that it will not cause "considerable industrial disruption" should it be allowed. It is no accident that the words in the amendment are taken directly from the speech made by the then Under-Secretary of State two years ago. All that we are asking is that the Government should be consistent and logical and provide for at least some protection against the disruption of industry through the clause as it now stands. This is a reasonable amendment which I commend to the House.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), with all his knowledge of trade union affairs, referred to the Standing Committee on the Employment Act 1980, on which I did not have the privilege of serving. It is a great pity that the Committee on this Bill, thanks to the delaying tactics of Labour Members, spent more than 50 hours on clause 1 and could not move on to serious and adequate discussion of some of the important middle clauses, such as this one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this clause introduces a new and important principle.

Mr. Crowther

rose—

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman has made his speech and I have very few minutes in which to make mine before my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply.

The Bill brings in the important new principle that a complainant can sue the trade union direct. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but he omitted the fact that the complainant can ask the industrial tribunal only to direct that the body that he claims exercised the pressure should be joined in the proceedings. The complainant must first convince the industrial tribunal that the union should be joined in the court proceedings. The claimant cannot do that directly, which provides an important safeguard.

The other point that the hon. Member for Rotherham missed was in failing to advance any reason why an employee who feels that he has been dismissed because of union pressure cannot join the union in a civil action. The union has the power to see that such a person is dismissed. We all know that that has happened in the past and, doubtless, will happen in the future. Shop stewards and paid union officials can and will go to an employer and ask him to remove an employee because he is difficult. Under those circumstances, I can see no reason why the claimant should not have the right or the opportunity to persuade the industrial tribunal that the union should be joined in the civil action. The hon. Gentleman did not tackle or answer that basic point of principle.

At one moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman would develop the argument that unions cannot afford to pay, that they are too weak, too poor and that they do not have the assets. Poor little union, how will it manage?

I am reminded of the lovely package that was dropped into my lap, and doubtless into some other hon. Members' laps too. It is a package issued by the TUC called "Fight Tebbit's Law". In that great package of documents, which doubtless will be referred to throughout the proceedings, there is a fascinating sheet which refers back to 1834 and to the deportation of the Tolpuddle martyrs. In pleading the union's case, presumably about poverty and their ability to pay, it includes a photograph of a cheque issued in 1903 for £23,000 which the Amalgamated Society for Railway Servants was forced to hand over to the Taff Vale Railway Company. That is fascinating history, but it has absolutely no relevance to the present power and financial standing of the unions, and to their ability to pay damages if they are properly sued by an employee for having caused him to lose his job.

If the clause goes ahead as it stands it will be possible for those who have lost jobs to join unions in civil actions on the basis that it is the union's responsibility. We could therefore take comfort from the fact that, contrary to the picture put out by the TUC in this mass of documentation for which every trade unionist is being asked to pay 10p, whether he likes it or not, and as The Times reported yesterday, the TUC annual survey of union income and expenditure showed that affiliated trade unions now have assets of £250 million and an annual income of almost £200 million. Therefore, they have reached the point where they can stand on their own feet. I am delighted about that.

As I said in Standing Committee, I want to see strong, independent and democratic unions in Britain. If trade unions are sued by an individual on the ground that they caused him to be unfairly dismissed, they will have to pay the damages. That is a good thing.

Mr. Mikardo

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) for mentioning the Tolpuddle martyrs because that helps me to comment on some observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). As everyone knows, I have a great affection for my hon. Friend and I always want to be of service to him. I am in a position to help him by explaining the truth about something that has puzzled him, namely, why a thesis that was strongly urged by a Conservative Minister in 1980, and was supported by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, is now considered to be outré by Conservative Ministers and by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.

My hon. Friend asked what has changed in the last two years. The change is that, as a result of the 1980 Act, we have had the only case since the Tolpuddle martyrs of a man being deported from these shores for the crime of believing in proper trade unionism. That man is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, when he committed the crime, was Secretary of State for Employment. He is today's Tolpuddle martyr, sentenced to deportation not, as in the earlier case, to meet his death in the plantations of the West Indies, but to meet his political death on the streets of Belfast.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to remind him that the guillotine falls at 6 o'clock? He may wish to leave some time for the Minister to reply.

Mr. Mikardo

I am not responsible for the guillotine falling at 6 o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I voted against the guillotine. If Ministers are inhibited from contributing to the debate by the falling of the guillotine, I am wider no obligation whatever to rescue them from the consequences of their interfering with proper democratic debate. Therefore, with great respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not feel called upon to respond to what you have just said.

The change that has come about in the past two years is that the Secretary of State's predecessor, while he wanted to limit the powers of trade unions, and legislated to that effect, nevertheless did not want to carry out a vendetta against the unions nor to weaken them. Why do the Government now think it right that a complainant can join a trade union, when, as was said, what matters is that the complainant has his remedies? Why have they now added this new provision? It is not to give the complainant a remedy. He has that. This is not being done in the interests of the chap who alleges that he has been unfairly dismissed, because he has a remedy for that. It is being done for a quite different motive. That motive runs right through the Bill. Several opportunities are provided to attack the membership and the funds of trade unions.

There is a great incentive to people to give up their membership. That is an attack on the trade unions by attempting to reduce their membership. There is a great incentive to the bounty hunters to get money from trade unions to reduce their funds. A figure of £250 million has been mentioned. That is £25 for each member. That is not a great reserve with all the obligations and difficulties that trade unions face. They are now having to give a service to a substantial proportion of their members who are not paying dues because the Government have thrown 3 million people out of work.

The Secretary of State has deliberately set out to provide every conceivable incentive to every bounty hunter. Imagine a miner in a mining village whose wife says to him: "You know old Bill down the road, he retired last week because he won £30,000 on the football pools. He is going off with his missus to live in Cornwall. He reckons that with his pension, the bit that he has saved up and the £30,000 he will not need to work. Why don't you win £30,000 on the football pools?" That miner will Say to himself that he could. All he has to do is to stop paying his union dues. He will then be excluded under the union rules and will be sacked for not being a union member because no non-unionist works down a coal mine. He can then sue the union and get £30,000. Therefore, he can say: "All right dear, we will join our friends in Cornwall. Just give me six months to take advantage of the Employment Act 1982". That sounds like a joke but it is a feasible, palpable and reasonable scenario under the terms of the clause and the Bill. That is why it is sheer hypocrisy to pretend that these provisions have been included for any decent purpose. This is being done only to damage, and things that are done to damage should not carry the commendation of the House.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison)

rose—

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [20 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 307.

Division No. 153]	[6 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Eadie, Alex
Adams, Allen	Eastham, Ken
Allaun, Frank	Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)
Anderson, Donald	English, Michael
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Ennals, Rt Hon David
Ashton, .Joe	Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Atkinson, .N. (H'gey)	Evans, John (Newton)
Bagier, Gordon A.T.	Ewing, Harry
Barnett, Guy(Greerwich)	Faulds,.Andrew
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)	Field, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Fitch, Alan
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)	Flannery, .Martin
Bidwell, Sydney	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Booth, RtHonAlbert	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Boothroyd, .MissBetty	Ford, Ben
Bottomley, RtHonA.(M'b'ro)	Forrester, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Foulkes, George
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Buchan, Norman	Garrett, W.E.(Wallsend)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.	George, Bruce
Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &P)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Campbell, Ian	Golding, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Gourlay, Harry
Canavan, Dennis	Graham, Ted
Carmichael, Neil	Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hardy, Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Cohen, Stanley	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Coleman, Donald	Haynes, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Conlan, Bernard	Heffer, Eric S.
Cook, Robin F.	Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Cowans, Harry	Holland, S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)	Home Robertson, John
Crowther, Stan	Homewood, William
Cryer, Bob	Hooley, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hoyle, Douglas
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Huckfield, Les
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Mark(Durham)
Davidson, Arthur	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Janner, Hon Greville
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	John, Brynmor
Deakins, Eric	Johnson, Walter (DerbyS)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Dixon, Donald	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dobson, Frank	Kerr, Russell
Dormand, Jack	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Dubs, Alfred	Lambie, David
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lamborn, Harry
Dunnett, Jack	Lamond, James
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Leighton, Ronald

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)	Robertson, George
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Litherland, Robert	Rooker, J.W.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Lyon, Alexander(York)	Rowlands, Ted
McCartney, Hugh	Ryman, John
McDonald, DrOonagh	Sever, John
McElhone,Frank	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
McGuire, Michael(Ince)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McKelvey, William	Short, Mrs Renée
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
McMahon, Andrew	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
McNamara, Kevin	Silverman, Julius
McTaggart, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
McWilliam, John	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Marks, Kenneth	Snape, Peter
Marshal, I, D (G 'gowS 'ton)	Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)	Spriggs, Leslie
Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)	Stallard, A. W.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Stoddart, David
Maxton, John	Strang, Gavin
Maynard, Miss Joan	Straw, Jack
Meacher, Michael	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)
Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce	Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Tilley, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Tinn, James
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Torney,Tom
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Morton, George	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Walker, Rt Hon.H.(D'caster)
Mulley, RtHon Frederick	Watkins, David
Newens, Stanley	Weetch, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Welsh, Michael
O'Neill, Martin	White, Frank R.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Palmer, Arthur	Whitehead, Phillip
Park, George	Wigley, Dafydd
Parry, Robert	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Pendry, Tom	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'seaW)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)
Prescott, John	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Woodall, Alec
Race, Reg	Woolmer, Kenneth
Radice, Giles	Young, David (Bolton E)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Richardson, Jo	Tellers for the Ayes:
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)	Mr. Allen McKay and Dr. Edmund Marshall.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)

NOES
Adley, Robert	Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Aitken, Jonathan	Bowden, Andrew
Alexander, Richard	Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Braine, Sir Bernard
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bright, Graham
Ancram, Michael	Brinton, Tim
Arnold, Tom	Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Aspinwall, Jack	Brooke, Hon Peter
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Brotherton, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)	Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)	Bruce-Gardyne, John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Bryan, Sir Paul
Banks, Robert	Buck, Antony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Budgen, Nick
Beith, A.J.	Bulmer, Esmond
Bendall, Vivian	Burden, Sir Frederick
Benyon, Thomas(A 'don)	Butcher, John
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Cadbury, Jocelyn
Best, Keith	Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn	Chapman, Sydney
Blackburn, John	Churchill, W.S.
Blaker, Peter	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Body, Richard	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bonsor, SirNicholas	Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Boscawen, HonRobert	Clegg, Sir Walter

Cockeram, Eric	Howells, Geraint
Colvin, Michael	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Cope, John	Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Cormack, Patrick	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Corrie, John	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Costain, SirAlbert	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Cranborne, Viscount	Jessel, Toby
Critchley, Julian	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Crouch, David	Jopling, RtHonMichael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dorrell, Stephen	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Dover, Denshore	Kitson, Sir Timothy
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Knox, David
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)	Lamont, Norman
Durant, Tony	Lang, Ian
Dykes, Hugh	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Latham, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lawrence, Ivan
Eggar, Tim	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Elliott, Sir William	Lee, John
Emery, Sir Peter	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Eyre, Reginald	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Fairgrieve, SirRussell	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Farr, John	Loveridge, John
Fell, Sir Anthony	Luce, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Lyell, Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey	McCrindle, Robert
Fisher, SirNigel	Macfarlane, Neil
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	MacGregor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Forman, Nigel	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Fox, Marcus	McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh	McQuarrie, Albert
Freud, Clement	Madel, David
Fry, Peter	Major, John
Gardiner,George (Reigate)	Marland, Paul
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Marlow, Antony
Garel-Jones,Tristan	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mates, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Goodhew, Sir Victor	Mawby, Ray
Goodlad, Alastair	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gorst, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gow, Ian	Mayhew, Patrick
Gower, Sir Raymond	Mellor, David
Gray, Hamish	Meyer, SirAnthony
Greenway, Harry	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Grieve, Percy	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'thN)	Miscampbell, Norman
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Grist, Ian	Moate, Roger
Grylls, Michael	Monro, SirHector
Gummer, John Selwyn	Montgomery, Fergus
Hamilton, Hon A.	Moore, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hannam, John	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Haselhurst, Alan	Mudd, David
Hastings, Stephen	Murphy, Christopher
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Myles, David
Hawksley, Warren	Neale, Gerrard
Hayhoe, Barney	Needham, Richard
Heddle, John	Nelson, Anthony
Henderson, Barry	Neubert, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Newton, Tony
Hicks, Robert	Normanton, Tom
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Nott, Rt Hon John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Onslow, Cranley
Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hooson, Tom	Osborn, John
Hordern, Peter	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)	Parris, Matthew

Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Pattie, Geoffrey	Stanley, John
Pawsey, James	Steel, Rt Hon David
Penhaligon, David	Stevens, Martin
Percival, Sir Ian	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Peyton, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Pink, R.Bonner	Stradling Thomas,J.
Pollock, Alexander	Tapsell, Peter
Porter, Barry	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Thompson, Donald
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Rathbone, Tim	Thornton, Malcolm
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Townsend, CyrilD, (B 'heath)
Renton, Tim	Trippier, David
Rhodes James, Robert	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Viggers, Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Waddington, David
Rifkind, Malcolm	Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Wakeham, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Walker, B. (Perth)
Rossi, Hugh	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Rost, Peter	Wall, Sir Patrick
Royle, Sir Anthony	Waller, Gary
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Walters, Dennis
St.John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.	Ward, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Warren, Kenneth
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Watson, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wheeler, John
Shepherd, Richard	Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam
Silvester, Fred	Whitney, Raymond
Sims, Roger	Wiggin, Jerry
Skeet, T. H. H.	Wilkinson, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)	Winterton, Nicholas
Speed, Keith	Wolfson, Mark
Speller, Tony	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Spence, John	Younger, Rt Hon George
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Tellers for the Noes:
Sproat, Iain	Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.
Squire, Robin
Stainton, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on an amendment moved by a member of the Government to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Six o'clock.