HC Deb 18 May 1982 vol 24 cc231-47
Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 11, line 39, leave out clauses 11 and 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be convenient to take also the following amendments: No. 22, in page 11, line 39, after '(1)', insert Except insofar as it might be necessary to comply with the terms of a union membership agreement'.

No. 23, in page 11, line 43, leave out from 'unions' to end of line 47.

No. 24, in page 11, leave out lines 45 to 47.

No. 25, in page 12, line 1, after 'the', insert `declared and explicit'.

No. 26, in page 12, line 26, leave out from 'is' to `that' in line 33.

No. 27, in page 12, line 40, leave out from 'is' to 'that' in line 45.

No. 28, in page 13, line 5, leave out from `is' to 'that' in line 12.

No. 31, in clause 12, page 13, line 33, leave out `induces, or attempts to induce' and insert 'compels'.

No. 32, in clause 12, page 13, line 41, leave out `inducement or attempted inducement' and insert `compulsion'.

No. 33, in clause 12, page 13, line 44, leave out 'or can reasonably be expected to have such an effect'.

No. 34, in clause 12, page 14, line 22, at end insert 'but a policy of membership or non-membership of a trade union or a particular trade union shall not of itself constitute a reason for the purposes of this subsection unless the act is done pursuant to a complaint or demand in express support of that policy'.

6.15 pm
Mr. Walker

Clauses 11 and 12 outlaw any requirement in a commercial contract for work to be done only by persons who are members of a trade union or of a particular union. The clauses go further, and impose a statutory duty not to exclude someone from approved lists of suppliers, or to terminate, or refuse to enter into, a commercial contract for reasons which include, whether explicitly stated or not, the provision that the work will be done by non-union labour. Failure to comply with that new statutory duty gives a right of civil action not only to actual or potential contractors but also, under clause 11(7)(d), in any case, any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention". That represents a further escalation of the Government's war against the trade unions. The Government have made it clear in a series of speeches and statements that they believe that union-only practices are a consequence of Labour control of certain local authorities. It is an added dimension of their vendetta against such authorities.

It was the Green Paper on trade union immunities that pointed out that those practices, in fact, extend much more widely. It specifically quoted civil engineering and construction. To some extent, the way was paved by the 1980 Act. During our debates both in Committee and in the House on the 1980 Act it was recognised that union-only labour conditions in such contracts had been widespread in the printing and engineering industries for many years. One thinks particularly of the TASS agreement with the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies. I shall say a word about that in a few minutes.

We recall the then Secretary of State for Employment—now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—during the proceedings on the 1980 Bill talking about the much more moderate and modest provisions in the Bill. He said: I hope—and we all hope—that the provisions of this clause will never have to be used, because it will only be used where coercive activities are imported". He was then challenged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) about the fair list. The Secretary of State then continued: We are not seeking to abolish fair lists, although most of us have grave doubts about the operation of fair lists as they were being operated by SLADE"— that is, the Society of Lithographic Artists, Designers, Engravers and Process Workers. They were part of the coercive activities.

The way fair lists are entered into as a result of an agreement—as is the case with the TASS agreement with the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies—is something with which we all ought to be able to live in good industrial relations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1980; c. 1574.] I wonder what has happened in the two years that have intervened to compel such a radical change of thought by the Government.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like many of us, will recall—perhaps not so vividly as we who were involved in the Committee—many of the proceedings on the 1980 Bill. They are now the subject of further dramatic extension, not merely in this, as it has been pointed out, but in many other matters where the House had been given to understand that there would be a period during which the new statutory arrangements would be given a chance to be put to the test. Nothing has happened to justify the changes. This is one of the changes. I do not believe that it is for us to make out a case as to why our amendments should be accepted, but for the Government to justify their legislation.

The fair list practice is widespread in many industries. I recall that my father worked in the hat manufacturing industry in the town of Denton in Lancashire. It was then the practice that nothing was accepted from a supplier unless the firm employed the appropriate trade union labour. No one in that town was expected to wear a felt hat that did not have a label, "Made by trade union labour", stuck inside the brim. I believe that the practice still continues in the hatting industry.

It has been a widespread practice for an employer and trade unions in particular industries to agree that materials are produced and that subcontracting work is done by approved trade union labour. That has often worked to the mutual benefit to the parties that were signatory to the agreement. I have already mentioned hatting and printing. A good example is perhaps the Federation of Engineering and Design Companies, an organisation very much involved, as the name implies, in supplying engineering designs and labour to carry out engineering design work.

For a long time the TASS section of AUEW has had an agreement that requires those in the federation to employ only TASS labour. Where labour is supplied to another drawing office, it is also the agreement that this should be TASS labour. It seems certain that such fair lists will now be outlawed by the Bill. It seems to me extraordinary that the then Secretary of State only two years ago should have said that fair lists were something with which we all ought to be able to live and now they are to outlawed.

I wonder whether the Government have thought through the potential consequences. I think of the closed shop in an engineering drawing office, established through the proper procedures of a ballot in which the requisite number have voted in favour of establishing a closed shop. It often happens in the engineering industry, perhaps due to a change of design, that there is a temporary overload of work and that people are brought in from outside. In future, it will not be possible to stipulate that the labour must be TASS labour. The consequence will be that nonunion labour can be imported into that closed shop. What will be the position in that drawing office where there has been an agreed closed shop, affirmed by procedures laid down by the Secretary of State? Will the closed shop be enforceable by the union? Or will any attempt to enforce it expose those enforcing it to action in the courts? It is not only the supplier of labour who may wish to sue. The Bill is not limited to that party. It refers also to any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention.

Mr. Leighton

Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the time in the Standing Committee when the then Secretary of State said that the fair lists were something with which we all ought to be able to live hon. Members had the benefit of the advice of the Solicitor-General who explained the legal meaning of what is now an Act. Both the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State gave their imprimatur to fair lists saying the they were so embedded in British industrial life that they were something with which they could live and which the Bill would not disturb.

Mr. Walker

It is true that we had the "benefit"—I put that word in inverted commas—of the advice not only of the Solicitor-General but also, at one stage, of the Attorney-General during our proceedings on the 1980 Bill. Despite our pleas for similar legal assistance on this Bill, we have been unable to persuade the Government that their legal luminaries should put in an appearance. Their presence would have been helpful. There is nothing to stop them sitting on the Government Bench at least to note points if not to respond to them.

It is a matter of great regret that neither the Solicitor-General nor the Attorney-General has been present during our proceedings. It may be that my words will be conveyed to some office in the Strand and that one of them will appear before our proceedings conclude. I hope that they attend before dinner rather than afterwards, although I am not suggesting that this will affect the quality of the advice that we receive.

In the drawing office where there is an established closed shop—it is not so hypothetical—which needs to take on additional temporary labour from outside and where the stipulation no longer applies that this labour should consist of members of TASS, so that people will be members of another union or not members of a union at all, the consequence may be an industrial dispute and perhaps a cessation of work. The person who has supplied the labour suffers damage because he has been unable to use it effectively, has not been paid for it and therefore has a claim. The employer, the man who runs the drawing office, may have a claim against those who stopped work and disrupted his production. There are also those waiting for the products of the drawing office such as manufacturers of motor cars or toys. Because of nondelivery to showrooms, the distributors and wholesalers may have a complaint against those who have disrupted supplies. Even the customer waiting for the car will perhaps have an action under the wording of the clause.

I have referred to fair lists that operate in the printing industry. It may happen as a result of an industrial dispute arising from the employment of non-union labour or the sending out of work to a non-union advertising agency, and work arriving without the SLADE or NGA sticker, that there is an interruption due to industrial action. As a consequence, a whole range of people may have a claim against the trade union or the workers taking the action. This issue has not been clarified in our debates.

Mr. Renton

I had thought that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) intended to expand on his point. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the practice of print unions blacking art work done by small outside firms that do not employ union members?

Mr. Walker

I understand that men and women, faced with the loss of their jobs and little likelihood of being able to obtain new employment due to technological change, at a time of intolerable levels of unemployment, should seek to safeguard their jobs and to strengthen the arrangements through which they negotiate and defend their terms and conditions of employment. This is the purpose for which people combine in trade unions.

Mr. Waddington

In the instance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) referred, those people are defending their jobs, if that is their motive, at the expense of the jobs of others. They are trying to destroy the jobs of those doing the art work in other firms.

6.30 pm
Mr. Walker

I must say that it ill lies in the mouth of a lawyer to talk in these terms when those who are not qualified according to the conditions and standards laid down by the practitioners in that profession are not allowed to practise. It ill lies in the hon. Member's mouth but I will answer him. That intervention shows his complete misunderstanding and ignorance of the realities of industrial relations. When the print unions such as SLADE or the National Graphical Association insist that at the printing end they will only handle work coming in from outside that carries their union sticker, they are seeking to defend as trade unionists the terms and conditions of employment of their members elsewhere; to safeguard the jobs of their members elsewhere by making sure that the work is carried out by the union and its members in accordance with the standards agreed by the trade union with the employers. That is one of the purposes of that kind of action. It is entirely understandable and is a longstanding practice which goes back at least to the last century and perhaps to even before then.

Mr. Renton

The fact that the practice goes back to the last century does not make it any better a practice.

Mr. Walker

The Government boast at the present time that there has been a significant improvement in industrial relations if measured by the incidence of strikes and loss of days' production, or numbers of workers participating. Indeed there has, and we should all welcome it. What I deplore is what I believe is the underlying cause, that there is not much point in going on strike in the dole queue; they have no employer to strike against. That is the principal reason for the dramatic change in dispute figures. Nonetheless, we must all welcome it. If things are improving, then why do we need industrial relations Bills? Why do we need these controversial measures which can only be inflammatory and provocative?

I was at a meeting in Sheffield yesterday and there is not the slightest doubt about the seething anger and resentment amongst trade unionists, over 2,000 people there declaring that they will all go to gaol. I am not saying whether I agree with all that. I am merely indicating that this is the strength of feeling amongst workers and shop stewards about this legislation.

All that is because the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked "Because something goes back to the last century, is that a reason for not changing it now?" I am suggesting only that if things are improving, that is the right time to leave them alone and not to go meddling with silly nonsenses like this. The hon. Gentleman would suggest that we should look round for something to stir up the trade unionists, the same kind of diversionary tactic that we have seen for so long: when there is a problem, turn attention away from it by looking elsewhere. Trade unionists are always good for whipping boys.

I was rather provoked by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. I had not intended to go on for so long and I shall try to bring my remarks to a conclusion. I must finish off the illustration I was in the midst of when I was interrupted. I was seeking to illustrate how, if a dispute affects the publication of a magazine, a great number of people down the line will be affected: those who produce the magazine; the many advertisers in the magazine who look to the advertising to boost their sales and whose sales as a consequence might be adversely affected if the magazine is not printed; the wholesalers; the retailers; all those engaged in the distribution, the newsagents, all those people who depend on the magazine for their living; right down to the lady who goes along complaining that each week she looks for the Thursday recipe to make the old man's dinner and this Thursday it had not been printed and she has to tell him "It's fish and chips again, Fred. The magazine's not been printed."

Mr. Leighton

Nothing to wrap his fish and chips in either!

Mr. Walker

In all these cases, apparently under the provisions of this Bill, all those parties would be adversely affected. Therefore, all under this new statutory provision would have a right to sue the union for damages. I said in the Standing Committee that obviously what would happen is that that kindly lady who could not make dinner for her husband would seek the advice of a solicitor and would be told "Look, love, at best you are only going to get a few bob if you are successful, and you risk losing perhaps one hundred quid", or whatever the legal fees are. "Therefore, you would be well advised to forget it."

At some stage right down that chain there must be a point at which the feasibility of pursuing the new personal remedy begins to fade, but along the line will be a whole string of people who will be able to claim either under the subsequent provision that limits the amount that a trade unionist can be sued for—presumably it does—and a whole series of actions costing the trade unions or the individuals concerned a lot of money. That is an extraordinary provision in what are clauses that can only be disruptive of industrial relations. The two clauses are a recipe for quite needless conflict, quite unnecessary strife, and the only people who benefit are the lawyers. No wonder the Under-Secretary is in favour. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) who has now joined us will be well aware of what is to be made out of those provisions. They are the only people who will be rubbing their hands and looking forward to making something out of this Bill. For the rest it will mean needless trouble and strife, and the sooner the Government have a rethink about these silly things and drop them the better it will be.

Mr. Michael Martin

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). One of the problems I see in what the Government propose is that the Government often argue that they are in favour of giving rights to the individual. As an individual I have a right when I purchase goods to ask the person who is selling those goods whether they were made by trade union labour. If they were not produced by trade union labour, I have the right to refuse to buy them.

Mr. Renton

rose—

Mr. Martin

I am just making my point, and I will give way in a few moments.

In the Labour movement, especially at election times when we in the Labour Party get involved in printing and ordering printing for political leaflets, we always insist that any printer we employ or give a contract to employs trade union labour. Over a period we receive many circulars from printers who make it a point of advertising that they employ trade union labour and that any subcontractors that they have are also trade union labour. These printers are specifically going out of their way to seek work from people who are conscious of the trade union movement and want to be involved and make sure that they are hiring trade union labour. It is the right of any individual group to be able to do this, but this legislation means that we in the Labour movement will not be allowed to ask for such assurances from printers or from anyone else whom we employ.

In my city of Glasgow we have a strong Co-operative movement. Unfortunately, the Cowlairs co-operative in my constituency closed last year because of certain difficulties, but for at least 90 years it was very strong in Springburn. Many people would not buy their goods from any place other than that co-operative. They bought their cigarettes, shoes, clothes and anything from a needle to an anchor in the co-operative because they knew, without asking, that the goods had been produced by trade union labour. That was their right. In a working-class area like Springburn, people are entitled to seek those assurances, yet that is something that the Government are taking away.

One reason why the co-operative has closed is, unfortunately, the high unemployment in Springburn. People are buying fewer goods. As a result, the co-op was forced to close. The Government say that they are concerned about the rights of individuals. They keep talking about the school ladies and the environmental health inspector who got the sack. They say that this legislation is to help people to exercise their rights. In that case, people should be entitled to exercise their right to buy from organisations which employ 100 per cent. trade union labour.

There are difficulties in this legislation for the building industry, which has few firms which are all trades companies. When a building company gets a contract to build a shopping complex, a hospital or any other building, it is usually required to bring subcontractors on to the site. Many non-trade union subcontractors in the building industry can be regarded as cowboys. The main employer may have a good safety record, but it is not easy for the employee or the trade union member to avoid coming into contact with a non-trade union subcontractor, many of whom have bad working practices. It can be dangerous for that person to work alongside the subcontractor. Let me give an example. Sand blasting often takes place on building sites. Although the main contractor may have high safety standards, the people doing the sand blasting, possibly employed by a company which employs two or three men, may be a bit slapdash. That can have a harmful effect on an employee who is working, say, 100 yards from the sand blasting. That is the type of difficulty that arises.

There is another problem in the building industry. If the main contractor has 100 per cent. trade union membership and has a good relationship with his employees, it is unlikely that there will be a strike. If non-union labour is allowed on the site, that non-union labour may be seeking better conditions, and may decide to organise themselves and perhaps join a trade union. If that happened, and if the employer decided that he would not employ anyone who was in a trade union, there could be a strike of a subcontractor on the site. Anyone who has worked on a building site will understand the difficulties that could lead to. If the subcontractor is doing a certain job, and if that subcontractor is in dispute, the employees of the main contractor will naturally refuse, if they are good trade unionists, to touch the work. The work of the whole site could be held up, not by the actions of the trade union labour, but by that of the non-trade union labour which sought to get themselves organised.

6.45 pm

It would be only natural for the good main employer with 100 per cent. trade union labour to say to himself "If I have 100 per cent. trade union labour and I have good relationships with my employees, I am going to make sure that no one comes on this site who will cause disruption or difficulty and thus hold up the contract". The Minister will know that contractors in the building industry work on a very low profit margin, and have to be very careful about their schedules and timetables.

The intention in clauses 11 and 12 is partly to prevent the blacking of work. When industrial problems arise, most of them are resolved between the employees or the union members and the employer. That may be difficult, but usually it does not involve a third party. However, sometimes, in order to break a strike, an employer sends out to subcontract work which is normally done by his own employees. In those circumstances, if the men are in dispute and decide to strike—men and women do not lightly decide to go on strike, in spite of what the Conservative Party may say; no one readily throws away his or her chances of earning a living; it is a big decision to make—and the employer puts the work out to contract, the men and their colleagues in the trade union movement have every right to black the work and see that that work is not transported from A to B, or the raw materials taken to a subcontractor, or vice versa.

I accept that blacking is a dirty word, but if men are in the street fighting for their livelihoods, and if an employer decides to put work out to a subcontractor, those men have every right to object and ask for the support of the trade union movement to stop it. If non-trade union labour is carrying out the work, the men have every right to approach the people who are involved in transporting the goods to stop that work being carried out.

The Minister will accept that in disputes there are faults on both sides. There are few disputes which are purely the fault of the employer or of the men. There are usually faults on both sides. Why should an outside company be brought in and given work, thereby causing a situation which can only be described as strike breaking? An honest employer would do his best to sort out his industrial relations. It is a myth to say that industrial relations in this country are bad. If the Minister looks at the industrial relations record and the strike record in this country, he will see that it is not the picture that he and the Conservative Party have tried to paint.

Clauses 11 and 12 will create great difficulty in industrial relations. No one with experience of industrial relations can honestly say that they will go a long way to help. Industrial relations are improving day by day because there are determined men and women both in the trade union movement and in management who want to bring about better industrial relations. The best action for the Minister to take is to keep well out of the matter. Since the Bill came before the House, he has demonstrated that he knows very little about industrial relations.

Mr. Renton

I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I was interested, even entranced, by his point that he had the right, when buying anything, to ask whether it had been made only by union labour. Is he serious? When he goes to Marks and Spencer to buy a pair of winter woollies, does he really ask the girl behind the counter whether the garment has been made by union labour? If it has not, will he buy another? If he does, they must find him an extremely strange customer.

Mr. Michael Martin

I do not go into Marks and Spencer to buy winter woollies. If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have known that I said that people are entitled to ask whether goods have been made by trade union labour. An employer is entitled to advertise that he employs 100 per cent. trade union labour. I specifically mentioned the Co-operative movement.

Mr. Renton

Whenever I go to Glasgow—I do so frequently as my wife's family come from Ayrshire—I make a point of wearing winter woollies to protect myself against the climate. That explains my analogy.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) put words into my mouth. During his speech on clause 11, I asked whether he supported print unions blacking the art work that is often provided by small non-union companies. In defence of that practice, the right hon. Gentleman said that it often went back to the last century. I then said that that does not necessarily make it a good practice. He elaborated by saying that I had said that because the practice goes back to the last century we should abolish it.

I did not say that at all. But the practices that we have witnessed, such as that of SLADE and other unions in the art and print world using their power to black subcontracted work from smaller firms which are not 100 per cent. unionised, is disgraceful. It has upset many people and lost many jobs. As the Minister said, even if the practice is preserving jobs in the print shops, it is getting rid of jobs in small companies which do not employ 100 per cent. union labour. The practice is not defensible.

It is odd that the Opposition amendment has grouped clauses 11 and 12 together in an attempt to drop both from the Bill. This is the rush, hotch-potch Opposition that we often saw in Standing Committee. There is little relationship between clauses 11 and 12. They should be treated separately. They are among the most important clauses in the Bill.

The ridiculous quantity of time that Opposition Members spent in delaying tactics on clause 1 meant that we did not have the opportunity in Committee fully to consider clauses 11 and 12 as we should have done. If anyone is glad about that, it is my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I suspect that they would have been worried by deep questioning from the Opposition on clause 12, such as on the subject of vicarious liability and whether actions that have been authorised by shop stewards can be repudiated by paid trade union officials. That is a tender point for the Government. However, the Opposition were busy earning their reputation and enabling themselves to go to the TUC to say that they had spent 50 hours on the Bill and were still on clause 1. They were so busy making a public relations point that they never got down to clause 12 until the last day.

Mr. Harold Walker

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so that I may lay to rest the canard about clause 1 and the Opposition's handling of it in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall that clause 1 saw the light of day only when the Government presented it in the Bill. There had been no consultations. The Opposition suggested in Standing Committee that clause 1 would more sensibly be taken at the end so that consultations, which we felt were crucial to those who would be affected by it, could be made. The hon. Gentleman voted with the Government, ensuring that we did not have that chance. If there was inadequate debate on the later clauses, it has nothing to do with what the Opposition said. It was the result of the guillotine motion that the Tory Government imposed and for which the hon. Gentleman voted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

I allowed the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) to reply but, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), he is getting wide of the amendment.

Mr. Renton

Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Protection may not be the correct word. My favourite definition of a canard is a malade imaginaire. That is why the right hon. Member for Doncaster spent so much time debating clause 1–50 hours protecting 400 imaginary sick people. The Opposition wasted time. That should be repeated over and again, as they did not do their duty properly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is still far from the amendment. He must come to it.

Mr. Renton

I shall return to it straight away.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends keep making allegations about the conduct of the Opposition in Committee. Do not the hon. Gentleman's remarks cast reflections on the competence with which the Chairman of the Standing Committee acted? Do they not imply that she allowed time-wasting?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I see no such reflection on the Chair. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Renton

I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure. Clause 11 ensures that the practice of union labour-only subcontracting is not extended. The practice has been noticeable in some local authorities. It is a way of subtly, or not so subtly, extending the closed shop irrespective of whether those to whom the closed shop is extended wish to be members of a union. The process is that pressure is brought to bear on a local firm. Unless its employees join a union and unless there is a closed shop, the local authority—itself unionised—will not place business with it.

7 pm

The background reason for the clause is very well expressed in a document drawn up by a committee of NALGO, formulating its opposition to the Bill and giving its reasons for opposing the various clauses. Paragraph 34 of that document, entitled "Union Labour—only subcontracting," states: The effect of clauses 10 and 11 will be to make it impossible for us"— that is, NALGO to put pressure on any employer of NALGO members to place contracts only with contractors who use union labour. A major consequence of these clauses will be felt in DLOs, where some local authorities require building contractors to confirm that they employ trade union members when tendering for contracts. This practice will be made illegal, and as a result, allow contractors who pay below union negotiated rates to underprice DLOs and gain an advantage in tendering. The paper then goes on to point out the danger of an increase in non-union, non-local-authority controlled services and contractors.

NALGO has seen and expressed precisely the reason why the clauses are in the Bill. They will make it more difficult for union labour-only subcontracting to be extended by local authorities in particular; and it is a very good reason why the provisions as drafted should be supported.

As I have said, clause 12 deals with vicarious liability and the question of which union official can authorise or repudiate an action for which, if it is unlawful, the union will for the first time in many years be liable to be sued for civil damages in the courts. Clause 12 goes to the heart of the Bill. At the risk of angering the right hon. Member for Doncaster again—if he were listening, which he is not—I must point out that clause 12 was taken on the last day of the Standing Committee, grouped with other clauses and had to be taken at a canter due to the foolish tactics of the Opposition. It was not adequately discussed in Committee. We did not get fully to the bottom, for example, of the degree to which unpaid shop stewards could authorise strike action for which the union might subsequently be sued for damages. Equally, we did not solve the problem of who could repudiate such actions.

I hope that the Minister will give us a little more information on this, as it lies at the heart of the Bill and we should know what will be the position in relation to official and unofficial action and who will be able to authorise or repudiate it.

Mr. Crowther

I am extremely concerned about the obvious failure of Ministers properly to understand the implications of these clauses. Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), we dealt with this at some length in Committee. Unfortunately, however, we failed to impress the Government with the points that we put forward. I do not know whether there is any better chance of doing so today.

The ripples of this will be felt throughout the whole range of contracts, from the very large ones placed by public bodies and large private companies to the very small ones placed by individual householders. All are covered by the provisions.

At the large contract end, all manner of spurious claims will arise. Anyone who has been involved, as I have, in producing lists of tenderers in local government, for example, understands that there are difficulties involving leaving companies off the list, not for any trade union reason but because one has reason to suspect, even without a great deal of positive proof, that they may not be capable of delivering on the target date or that their workmanship may not be so high as one would wish. For all kinds of reasons based on reliable information but perhaps not easily provable in court, companies may be left off lists of tenderers.

Under the clause, any company that is left off for one of those good reasons but which happens also to be a non-trade union company will immediately take the authority to court and claim that it was omitted for trade union reasons. All manner of spurious claims will arise.

Further down the scale, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) have pointed out, other difficulties will arise. At some points, the clause descends into the realm of pure farce. For example, if the Musicians Union organises a dance and decides that it wants a union band to provide the music, it will be in breach of its statutory duty. If a printing union decides that it wants its own journal to be printed only by union printers, it will be in breach of its statutory duty. That is the kind of comic opera situation that will arise. I am afraid that Ministers have not fully appreciated the implications. How silly it would be if a non-trade union printing firm took, say, NATSOPA to court for having its own journal printed by union labour. Yet that could be the result of the clause.

Finally, I am afraid that the public are unaware of the implications for individual householders and the danger in which they are placed by the clause. If an individual citizens wishes to have his house painted or to have a small extension built and decides, because he is a trade unionist himself, that he wishes a trade union firm to do that work, he will be in breach of his statutory duty and can be taken to court by any non-trade union firm that did not get the job even if the householder has never heard of the firm.

That is the position under the clause as it stands. We tried to amend it in Committee, but the Government strenuously resisted all the ways in which we tried to make it more understandable and to knock off some of the worst rough edges. The clause therefore comes to us totally unamended, so the only logical thing to do now is to leave it out completely. I earnestly urge the House to do so.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

I wish to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and the points made in Committee by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) about the construction industry. Labour relations are difficult enough in an industry with a multiplicity of trade unions. The men are probably living away and, just when the people running the site have eventually got labour relations smoothed out, a small contractor with non-trade union labour may come along and upset the whole labour relations set-up on the site. That great danger was pointed out in Committee and was mentioned again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) referred to another important matter both in Committee and again today. Incidentally, I should point out to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) that we are not talking about NALGO or big unions here. Many small contractors could be involved. The council on which I served until last Thursday has a housing advisory scheme whereby people requiring extensions to their houses apply to the local authority. The local authority takes that application on board and puts it through for planning permission. It goes to the finance committee for a grant to be agreed. The householder is then told that everything has gone through the council and it is up to him to arrange a contract for the work to be done. The council issues a list of contractors who carry out small jobs. If one of the contractors is a trade union-only contractor, employing two or three men, and is picked by the householder, according to the clause the other firms on the list could object if they believed that the householder picked I he contractor because it was a trade union-only firm.

Many people who have been made redundant due to the Government's policies have used their redundancy payments to build extensions on their houses. They decided to employ a firm that used only trade union labour. Under this clause they could be taken to court by other contractors who believe that they were wrongly excluded from carrying out the work. That is why the Opposition want the clause to be rejected.

I refer to an article in the Evening Chronicle on 26 March.

Building federations in the North-East today stood united in their condemnation of cowboy con-men and their firms who are giving the trade a bad name. The article referred to many small contractors who are not completing jobs to standard and that are, in the main, employing non-union labour. That is relevant to the clause. I hope that the House accepts the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and rejects clause 11.

Mr. Waddington

Many people must be worried by the Opposition's inability to recognise an abuse when it stares them straight in the face. I think that virtually everyone recognises that abuses are occurring every day as a result of union labour only contracts.

It would have been understandable if the Opposition had said that abuses occur, but that on the other hand it is a necessary practice and one must put up with the odd abuse. But it is amazing to see the Opposition almost congratulating themselves on lending support to these obvious abuses.

In Committee the Opposition recited a catalogue of wildly improbable examples of people who will be caught by the provisions. We had examples of Scottish ladies who feared to have their bathrooms painted by those dangerous maniacs, the painters who do not have a union card in their hip pockets. We had other Scottish ladies who would live in terror of being dragged off to court for having put out to general tender a painting job costing half a crown. What absolute nonsense that all is. It is fanciful nonsense to suggest that ordinary householders will be caught by these provisions. Unless the lady in Glasgow goes to the extent of putting an advertisement in the Glasgow Herald saying that she has been a naughty girl and has given a painting job to a man solely because he is a member of a union she has nothing to fear.

We must put the record straight. Union labour only clauses are bad. They are a means of enforcing union membership by the back door by using commercial pressure. The message is "You see that your work force is unionised. Sack those who will not conform or you will never get a contract again." Such restrictions are uncompetitive. They are used to prop up inefficient direct labour organisations in local authorities. They are bad for the ratepayer, for the taxpayer and for the country. They are indefensible.

There are real abuses. I am absolutely amazed that the Opposition cannot recognise that innocent people are seriously harmed by these practices. Dozens of small building contractors in places such as Darlington suddenly get a letter from the council informing them that they will never get work again unless they undertake to do it with union labour only. The small family haulage firm that for years has worked in and out of the docks suddenly finds its way barred and its business threatened by a shop steward who has taken it into his head to ask the driver for his union card. Employees of a graphic design company find that their livelihoods are put at risk because unions at the printing houses decide to turn away their work as it does not carry a union sticker. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right; it is no doubt done by some people in the printing houses because they believe it is necessary to secure their own jobs. However, make no mistake about it, their actions are threatening the jobs of others and driving many small firms out of business.

7.15 pm

Have the Opposition forgotten what was said in the Leggatt report? Not only did Mr. Leggatt find that the workers who were being compelled to join a union by the antics of SLADE did not want to join SLADE, but he found also that when some of them had been bullied into union membership the union could do nothing for them and did not even begin to understand their needs or problems. He concluded—everyone who seeks to continue these practices should ponder his words: when employees are coerced into joining a union against the alternative of being put out of business, the union subscription is bound to look like payment for a licence to work or 'protection' money. Those words should be remembered by the Opposition.

Mr. Leighton

All this was rehearsed two years ago. We were told that the 1980 Act remedied any abuses mentioned in the Leggatt report. That matter has been dealt with. Will the Minister explain what has changed in the two years since the then Secretary of State said that the system of fair lists as operated, for example, by TASS was something with which we could live? The Leggatt report was dealt with in the previous Act.

Mr. Waddington

I do not agree that the 1980 Act tackled the problem. It was hoped that section 18 would do so, but to the best of my knowledge it has not. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is looking for evidence of what has happened since then he should consider Darlington, Camden, Tower Hamlets, Brent, Walsall, Kirklees, Scunthorpe, Doncaster, Newcastle, Wigan and The Wrekin. That is a list of shame of local authorities which have been perpetrating these practices, but the hon. Gentleman asks me what has happened since 1980. For a start, Darlington has happened since 1980.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. and learned Gentleman is going on about the Leggatt report and SLADE. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East rightly asked why the hon. and learned Gentleman is trotting out all this stuff from Leggatt when we were told two years ago that the legislation would stop all that. What has happened to justify the hon. and learned Gentleman once again trotting out all this hoary stuff about Leggatt?

Mr. Waddington

I would not have given way if I had known that the right hon. Gentleman was going to waste the time of the House. I was quoting from the Leggatt report because it demonstrated the recruiting tactics used by some unions. If that is not an argument against the existence of union labour only contracts, I do not know what is.

We are told that union labour only requirements are contained in collective agreements. That cannot possibly sanctify them or make them respectable. What right has an employer and a union to impose their agreement on others? They can make an agreement between themselves and decide that they want everybody in the workplace to be a member of a union, but by what right do they say that nobody else should work in the place on a commercial contract without being dragooned into the union?

We are told that the Bill will stop employers taking on the contractors of their choice. That is not true. There is nothing to stop a person deciding not to give his work to a certain person, provided that he does not discriminate on the grounds of union membership or non-union membership.

The argument about safety is always dragged up and put forward as an excuse. There is no necessary connection between the holding of a union card and safety. Even if the card proves safety, the absence of a card would not prove the opposite. There is no evidence that firms that are not unionised pay less attention to the need to look after the safety of their staff than firms that are unionised.

The only way to judge a man is by his record, not by what he carried in his hip pocket. There is nothing in clause 11 to prevent an employer applying rigorous standards of safety to the firms to which he is subcontracting. There is nothing that forces him to do business with cowboys or unsafe firms.

I know that I shall annoy the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) by going back to the Leggatt report. None of the people who were referred to in that report and who were injured by the tactics of SLADE were moonlighters, cowboys, free riders, or whatever rude term the Opposition apply to them. They were ordinary working men and women who wanted to get on with their jobs free from interference and intimidation. One of the purposes of the legislation is to see that they shall be able to do so.

Mr. Leighton

It is too much to re-run Leggatt and SLADE two years later. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a long list of shame, including Darlington and Doncaster. Could the Minister give us any references in the Leggatt report to any such places? He knows that he has no evidence from Leggatt.

Mr. Waddington

If the hon. Gentleman asks a silly question, he is likely to receive a silly answer. Of course, there is nothing in the Leggatt report about local authorities. Since 1980 abuses have occurred in local authorities involving the use of the system of union labour only contracts to try to circumvent some of the disciplines that were imposed by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. By doing so, they do grave harm to individual contractors who have been doing valuable work for local authorities for years. It is high time that the local authorities realised the harm that they are doing.

I am not ashamed to mention the Leggatt report. Whatever was the effect of the 1980 Act on the practices followed by SLADE, one cannot condone for one moment a practice that tries to compel union membership—

Mr. Leighton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leggatt report has nothing to do with local authorities. The Minister is misleading the House if he refers to the Leggatt report in relation to local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister will decide the context in which he refers to any report.

Mr. Waddington

The debate goes much wider than local authorities. I have shown the abuses that occur in local authorities. I have already described the abuses that take place at the docks and in haulage companies. This will not please the hon. Gentleman. I have already described the abuses that occur in printing houses, of which I gather he knows a lot. He knows the abuses that take place there and how the tactics pursued by the printing unions are depriving other people of jobs. He has nothing to be proud of.

We have heard a lot about too many people being afforded a remedy under the Bill. There is no point in a person who has no connection with the granting of a contract suing because he will not get to first base. He will not have the faintest chance of recovering damages or getting an injunction against the firm that awarded the contract discriminately on union labour grounds.

To say that the clause is too wide and that therefore dangers will occur is complete nonsense. I could sue the right hon. Member for Doncaster tomorrow for having run into my car. He has never seen my car, but I could still sue him. He has no protection against my suing him. He has abundant protection against my succeeding in getting damages against him because I could not get to first base and prove that he had damaged my car.

Mr. Harold Walker

The Minister must do better than that. Clause 11(7) states: Subsection (2) above does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following". Those people are referred to in clause 11(7)(a), (b), (c) and (d), which states: in any case, any other person who may be adversely affected by its contravention. The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the clause means something other than what it is saying. Therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman must take back the Bill for redrafting. I hope that he will deal with he serious point that I raised. He has dealt with other matters, but has studiously ignored my case about the Federation of Engineering Design Companies, its relationship with TASS and the problem that may arise when there is a legitimate closed shop in a drawing office which is disrupted by non-unionists being imported by an agency, to which in future an employer can no longer say that it must send only trade union members. Will the closed shop be disrupted, or will it be able to continue legitimately?

Mr. Waddington

How on earth in logic can the closed shop extend to people other than employees of the employer? Employers and employees have no right to enter into agreements that will affect people who will not be employees of the employer and who will not get any of the rights that are granted to employees under our employment protection legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to clause 11(7). We have been willing to learn at his feet. I assure him that there is a clear precedent for the wording of clause 11(7). It can be found in the Resale Prices Act 1976, which provides that the obligation to comply with sections 1, 2, 9 and 11 is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of them". Those were the appropriate words for that Act and they are the appropriate words for this Act.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me who might benefit under clause 11(7)(b). The subcontractor or contractor may suffer as a result of the contractor being disqualified from getting a contract because he is not wholly unionised. It would be proper for that person to claim damages because he has been deprived of work. It would be proper for the employees of the contractor, who have been gravely damaged and perhaps thrown out of work by that iniquitous practice, to go to a court and claim damages. Why not? This is not a bosses' charter, but a worthwhile reform that will go a long way towards giving further protection to ordinary working people who do not now have adequate protection. We are also comforted by the fact that there is widespread support for this action.

Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many building and civil engineering contracting firms were disappointed when this provision was not included in the Employment Act 1980? Those firms are still suffering from unfair discrimination. Will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance to those firms that he will monitor carefully the removal of these penal clauses?

Mr. Waddington

We shall keep an eye on the legislation.

We are not putting on the statute book something that has only slight support. In the representations that were made following the Green Paper there was overwhelming support for our taking action in this area. It has been said on the Opposition Benches that the building employers are against the change. Far from it. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers asked us to take this step, as did the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. We are carrying out a well worthwhile reform, which has overwhelming support in the trade, the country, among ordinary people and among trade unionists as well.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 305.

Division No. 154] [7.30 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo Fitch, Alan
Adams, Allen Flannery, Martin
Allaun, Frank Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Anderson, Donald Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Ford, Ben
Ashton, Joe Forrester, John
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Foulkes, George
Bagier, Gordon A.T. Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN) George, Bruce
Bidwell, Sydney Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Golding, John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Gourlay, Harry
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) Graham, Ted
Bray, Dr Jeremy Grant, John (Islington C)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Hardy, Peter
Buchan, Norman Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &P) Haynes, Frank
Campbell, Ian Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Campbell-Savours, Dale Heffer, Eric S.
Canavan, Dennis Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Cant, R. B. Holland, S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)
Carmichael, Neil Home Robertson, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis Homewood, William
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hooley, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) Hoyle, Douglas
Cohen, Stanley Huckfield, Les
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Cook, Robin F. Janner, Hon Greville
Cowans, Harry Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) John, Brynmor
Crowther, Stan Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Cryer, Bob Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n) Kerr, Russell
Dalyell, Tam Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Davidson, Arthur Lambie, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Lamborn, Harry
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lamond, James
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Leighton, Ronald
Davis, Terry (B 'ham, Stechf'd) Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Deakins, Eric Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Litherland, Robert
Dewar, Donald Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Dixon, Donald Lyon, Alexander (York)
Dobson, Frank McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Dormand, Jack McElhone, Frank
Dubs, Alfred McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Duffy, A. E. P. McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dunnett, Jack McKelvey, William
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Eadie, Alex McMahon, Andrew
Eastham, Ken McNamara, Kevin
Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're) McTaggart, Robert
English, Michael McWilliam, John
Ennals, Rt Hon David Marks, Kenneth
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)
Evans, John (Newton) Marshall, DrEdmund (Goole)
Ewing, Harry Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Faulds, Andrew Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)
Field, Frank Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Maxton, John Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Maynard, Miss Joan Silverman, Julius
Meacher, Michael Skinner, Dennis
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Mikardo, Ian Snape, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Soley, Clive
Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby) Spearing, Nigel
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen) Spriggs, Leslie
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Stallard.A.W.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Stoddart, David
Morton, George Strang, Gavin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Straw, Jack
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Newens, Stanley Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)
O'Neill, Martin Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Tilley, John
Palmer, Arthur Tinn, James
Park, George Torney, Tom
Parry, Robert Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Pendry, Tom Wainwright, E. (Dearne V,)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Prescott, John Watkins, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W) Weetch, Ken
Race, Reg Welsh, Michael
Radice, Giles White, Frank R.
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) White, J. (G'gowPollok)
Richardson, Jo Whitehead, Phillip
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Whitlock, William
Roberts, Allan (Bootle) Wigley, Dafydd
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Robens, Gwilym (Cannock) Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Robertson, George Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Rooker, J. W. Winnick, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) Woodall, Alec
Rowlands, Ted Woolmer, Kenneth
Ryman, John Young, David (Bolton E)
Sever, John
Shearman, Barry Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. Hugh McCartney and Lawrence Cunliffe
Short, Mrs Renée
Silkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)
NOES
Adley, Robert Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)
Aitken, Jonathan Bruce-Gardyne, John
Alexander, Richard Bryan, Sir Paul
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Buck, Antony
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Budgen, Nick
Ancram, Michael Bulmer, Esmond
Arnold, Tom Burden, Sir Frederick
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Butcher, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Cadbury, Jocelyn
Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone) Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Banks, Robert Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Bendall, Vivian Chapman, Sydney
Benyon, ThomasA (A'don) Churchill, W.S.
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Best, Keith Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bevan, David Gilroy Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Clegg, Sir Walter
Biggs-Davison, SirJohn Cockeram, Eric
Blackburn, John Colvin, Michael
Blaker, Peter Cope, John
Body, Richard Cormack, Patrick
Bonsor, SirNicholas Corrie, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Costain, Sir Albert
Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW) Cranborne, Viscount
Bowden, Andrew Critchley, Julian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Crouch, David
Braine, Sir Bernard Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Bright, Graham Dickens, Geoffrey
Brinton, Tim Dorrell, Stephen
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Brooke, Hon Peter Dover, Denshore
Brotherton, Michael du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Dunn, Robert(Dartford) Langford-Holt, SirJohn
Durant, Tony Latham, Michael
Dykes, Hugh Lawrence, Ivan
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Edwards, RtHon N. (P'broke) Lee, John
Eggar, Tim Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Elliott, Sir William Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Emery, Sir Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fairgrieve, SirRussell Loveridge, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila Luce, Richard
Farr, John McCrindle, Robert
Fell, Sir Anthony Macfarlane, Neil
Fenner, Mrs Peggy MacGregor, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey MacKay, John (Argyll)
Fisher, SirNigel Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Forman, Nigel McQuarrie, Albert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Madel, David
Fox, Marcus Major, John
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh Marland, Paul
Fry, Peter Marlow, Antony
Gardiner, George(Reigate) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Garel-Jones, Tristan Mates, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Glyn, Dr Alan Mawby, Ray
Goodhart, Sir Philip Mawhinney., Dr Brian
Goodhew, Sir Victor Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Good lad, Alastair Mayhew, Patrick
Gorst, John Mellor, David
Gow, Ian Meyer, Sir Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Gray, Hamish Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Greenway, Harry Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Grieve, Percy Miscampbell, Norman
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm ds) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Moate, Roger
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Monro, Sir Hector
Grist, Ian Montgomery, Fergus
Grylls, Michael Moore, John
Gummer, John Selwyn Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Hamilton, Hon A. Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mudd, David
Hannam, John Murphy, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan Neale, Gerrard
Hastings, Stephen Needham, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Nelson, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren Neubert, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney Newton, Tony
Heddle, John Normanton, Tom
Henderson, Barry Nott, Rt Hon John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Onslow, Cranley
Hicks, Robert Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L Osborn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas('Gr'th'm) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Hooson, Tom Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Hordern, Peter Parris, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd) Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Howells, Geraint Pattie, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral) Pawsey, James
Hunt John(Ravensbourne) Penhaligon, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Percival, Sirlan
Irving, Charles(Cheltenham) Peyton, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Pink, R. Bonner
Jessel, Toby Pollock, Alexander
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey Porter, Barry
Johnston, Russell(Inverness) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Proctor, K. Harvey
Kaberry, Sir Donald Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Rathbone, Tim
Knox, David Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Lamont, Norman Rees-Davies, W. R.
Lang, Ian Renton, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon Temple-Morris, Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Thompson, Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Thornton, Malcolm
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) Townend, John(Bridlington)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Townsend, CyrilD,(B'heath)
Rossi, Hugh Trippier, David
Rost, Peter van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Royle, Sir Anthony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Viggers, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. Waddington, David
Scott, Nicholas Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey) Wakeham, John
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough) Waldegrave., Hon William
Shelton, William(Streatham) Walker, B.(Perth)
Shepherd.Colin(Hereford) Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Shepherd, Richard Wall, Sir Patrick
Silvester, Fred Waller, Gary
Sims, Roger Walters, Dennis
Skeet, T. H. H. Ward, John
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale) Warren, Kenneth
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S) Watson, John
Speed, Keith Wells, Bowen
Speller, Tony Wells, John (Maidstone)
Spence, John Wheeler, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Whitney, Raymond
Sproat, Iain Wickenden, Keith
Squire, Robin Wiggin, Jerry
Stainton, Keith Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Stanbrook, Ivor Winterton, Nicholas
Stanley, John Wolfson, Mark
Steel, Rt Hon David Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stevens, Martin Younger, Rt Hon George
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Tellers for the Noes:
Stradling Thomas.J. Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.
Tapsell, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to