Employment Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 25 October 1982 vol 29 cc735-54 3.39 pm

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit)

I beg to move, That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows: Lords Amendments 1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Time for Conclusion
1	7.00 pm
2 to 14	8.00 pm
15 to 22	9.15 pm
23 to 41	10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended; (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment. (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments 3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings. 4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion— (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair; (b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

1. (i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;
736
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental 5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee. (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee. (3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed. (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.— [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not chime in there. I should be perfectly content if the matter were to go through on the nod. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, and his colleagues, like many of us on the Conservative Benches, did not realise that Mr. Speaker was putting the Question. I know that the Official Opposition wish to debate the motion, and I am happy to do so. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House.

We have already spent more than 150 hours discussing the Bill, and the motion provides a further five and a half hours in which to consider the amendments that have been made to the Bill in another place. It may help, therefore, if I remind the House that the version of the Bill before us is the one which was ordered to be printed on 21 May this year. I hope that it wall avoid any other procedural muddles if we all use the same version in our discussions.

The purpose of the motion is twofold—first, to ensure that there is no further delay in the Bill's reaching the statute book, and secondly, to ensure that in the time still. available we give proper consideration to the main issues—employee involvement, the closed shop, requirements about trade union recognition and trade union immunities—which are covered by the amendments made in another place.

I say at once that the Government would have preferred not to have a timetable motion at this stage. It is necessary for one reason only—the clear determination of the Opposition to frustrate the passage of the Bill with every means at their disposal and thereby to withhold for as long as possible from employees and employers the important new protection that the Bill contains. At no stage during the Bill's progress through this House has the Official Opposition shown any inclination to subject its provisions to serious scrutiny. That was not true of the minority parties. I direct that remark to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) who represents the SDP today, as he did in Committee. I should add that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was always robust in his comments and was seldom absent from the Committee. I know that he is absent today only because of pressing business which prevents him from being here.

The Opposition's attitude was clear from the moment when the Bill started its Committee stage last February, when they spent 37 hours trying to remove clause 1. There was further evidence of that attitude in April when, after the Government had been forced to introduce a timetable motion, the Opposition failed to use all the time that was available under that motion to discuss the Bill's remaining provisions. They merely wished to extend the period to delay the whole process, not to discuss the Bill. That is abundantly clear again today from the Opposition's decision, which I fully understand, to spend an hour in ritual denunciation of the timetable motion, instead of using the time to debate the amendments.

Of course, it suits the Opposition's purpose to stick to generalities. If they can avoid discussing the detail of the Bill it is easier for them to exaggerate and distort its purpose and effects and to perpetuate the myth that it is an attack on ordinary working people. In truth, the Bill is nothing of this sort. It does not undermine responsible trade unionism. It does not prevent those who wish to do so from joining a trade union. It does not prevent trade union officials from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their terms and conditions of work or in job security.

As I have said before, the Bill is essentially a modest and moderate one. Its aim is to protect both employers and employees—and, indeed, the public at large—against the abuses and excesses of trade union power, the tyranny of the closed shop, industrial action that hits at those who cannot defend themselves, and bullying and coercion which seem, from recent events, to play an increasing part in trade union activities.

When we brought the Bill before the House in January, the need was clear. The sacking of non-union employees by Walsall and Sandwell councils in open defiance of the law, the insiduous spread of the closed shop through the back door of union labour only clauses in contracts—

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

What? Did the right hon. Gentleman say "insiduous"?

Mr. Tebbit

Perhaps when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gets time he will make a speech in his own inimitable accent.

The events that I have mentioned and the continuing reluctance of trade unions to put their own house in order, as they shelter behind their wall of immunities, were evidence enough, but if anyone doubted the need for the Bill then, they surely no longer do so today. In recent months, some trade unions have plumbed new depths in the treatment of their members. A month ago, the TUC called on all member unions to support the so-called day of action. What form did the support take in some trade unions? How did they demonstrate sympathy and solidarity? It was certainly not by consulting their members or by asking for support, but by giving them the choice of going on strike or losing their union cards and thus, in a closed shop, their jobs.

Since that so-called day of action, I have received more than 50 letters from trade unionists—some on behalf of substantial groups of their fellow workers. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be familiar with the orange folders which denote letters from Members of Parliament, but in addition, here are wads of letters, one after another, from trade unionists, protesting about the fact that they were being threatened with the loss of their jobs unless they went on strike. I should be happy to spend the whole day reading out the letters, because they would substantiate the need for us to proceed swiftly with the Bill.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is the Secretary of State aware that in Cumbria one such trade unionist wrote a letter like that to a newspaper, and it was found to be utterly fraudulent and inaccurate?

Mr. Tebbit

I cannot imagine that the hon. Gentleman would expect that to undermine the Bill. I have some letters, for example, written on the notepaper of the National Graphical Association, and I doubt whether they are fraudulent. I have received plenty from Members of Parliament, some from my own constituents, and some from people whom I know personally. I have one from the deputy mayor of my own borough, for example, who is being threatened.

Sir Frederick Burden (Gillingham)

Surely, my right hon. Friend will remember receiving a letter from me, when all the members of a firm in my constituency were threatened with the withdrawal of the union card if they did not come out. I sent the letter to the papers, and they questioned the trade union secretary involved, who admitted that it had been done.

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) does not defend those actions. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) will say that no pressure was put on any trade unionists to come out on strike, and that under no circumstances will any union cards be withdrawn or anyone lose their job over it, unless he does, it makes what the hon. Member for Workington says look cheap, unsubstantiated and difficult to believe.

In some cases union branches and chapels actually voted not to strike, but that meant nothing to the bosses. One letter from a trade union says it all. The letter is dated 20 September—two days before the "day of action"—and was sent by the Oxford and Berkshire branch of the NGA to chapels which had voted not to strike on 22 September. It begins disarmingly "Dear colleague", but goes on: We understand that you may have decided not to stay away from work on Wednesday September 22nd in support of the National Health Service Workers' Day of Action". Then it says: We must inform you that it is not open to chapels or members to 'vote' to ignore National Council instructions". How does that fit the hon. Gentleman's theories? But that was not all. The letter continues: To ignore a binding decision of the National Council is to lay yourself open to disciplinary action under Association rule 41". The NGA members—and there were a lot of them among my 50 correspondents so far—told me that that rule says that anyone disobeying union instructions will be fined up to £500 or expelled. That is the penalty for going to work. That is the penalty for those who voted in their meetings to go to work, and were then told that they could not go to work. Where is the pretence of democracy? That is not even a parody of the car park meeting that we have witnessed on other occasions; it is simply the crushing of dissent by the crudest of threats. The case has been well put by one who knows more about the corruption and viciousness of the trade union bullies than any of us here today. He said: For more years than I care to remember the extreme left have been intriguing, lying and manipulating the votes of trade unions … They have prolonged meetings until they have a majority that can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. They scandalise and intimidate the ordinary decent people who once made up the bulk of the union and Labour party activists. At secret meetings, they hand out lists of people to be supported in elections and are able to ensure that they get that support by taking advantage of the poor attendance at the official local branch meetings where they have little difficulty in securing the acceptance of both their nominees and their policies. After all, three or four people are often the majority in branches with a membership of 500 or a thousand who prefer to watch television rather than engage in bitter and often personalised debates about politics. They then hail these accomplishments as a decision of the members—not the three or four who attended the meeting, but the hundreds who did not. They conceal their real aims behind slogans such as 'the members have been sold down the river', or 'for greater rank and file control' or 'broad left candidate'. Their real aim is to swing the movement behind revolutionary policies which, if they were out in the open, would get little support. Even where they fail, they leave a trail of recrimination and resentment that reflects on the union and its leaders: portraying them as incompetent bunglers, in the pockets of the employers. That is not my description, nor are they the words of someone who is hostile to the trade unions. They are the words of the present chairman of the general council of the TUC, writing in a Sunday newspaper on 10 October this year. I agree with every word that he says. How many Opposition Members would stand up and have the courage to say the same thing? How many of them even believe that, and how many of them are mere puppies running yapping at the heels of the militants?

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

One hon. Gentleman is going to support the chairman of the general council of the TUC.

Mr. Leighton

Does the Secretary of State know what the fine in the NGA rule book is at the moment? He quoted a figure of £500. I understand that that is the proposed figure for next year. Is he aware that the current fine is £75, that there is no chance of anyone being fined more than £75 and that no one has been fined? In view of those facts, will the Secretary of State withdraw his statement about people being threatened with a fine of £500?

Mr. Tebbit

No, Sir. I will not withdraw my statement. I know that the maximum fine is only £75. I know that the £500 fine will not come into effect until next year. I know that the NGA needs it to dragoon its members into line. What I quoted was what the branch was telling its members. It was not telling the truth about the fines in its own union. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has made the position worse and not better for the scurrilous people whom he seeks to defend.

Therefore, there is still not one Opposition Member who will come to the rescue of the chairman of the general council of the TUC with a word of support. However, I will give him support. I back him in everything that he said in the extract that I read to the House.

The Bill will bring greater protection for workers who want simply to work rather than to strike. Some people do not understand the extent of protection that they have. That will come out in matters that we shall deal with in the Bill. It is true that British Telecommunications staff who did not take part in the events of 20 October were told clearly and firmly by their management that the job security agreement for Post Office Engineering Union represented grades does not differentiate between union and non-union members and is not relevant in that context. The Post Office makes it clear that it will not dismiss, even under union pressure, those who did not take part in the strike. I am grateful for the chance to put that right.

Conservative Members will never accept the vision of society in which every person is dragooned into unions, whether he likes it or not, and in which everyone has to march in the same direction and at the beck and call of what Sid Weighell described as squawking Left-wing mobs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

On cue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner

Will the Minister confirm that he is part of a Government who believe in collective security and that if any Ministers step out of line on this Bill, the Transport Bill or any other Bill of major importance, they will, as a result of the collective security in the Cabinet, lose not £75, or £500, but their jobs?

Mr. Tebbit

As no Bill is brought forward without the unanimous agreement of the Cabinet and Ministers, the hon. Gentleman's point is sillier than usual.

We believe that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to join a trade union or take part in a strike. We believe that the community must be protected against the excesses of trade union power, so brilliantly described by Frank Chapple. That is what the Bill is all about. That is why it should be passed without further delay so that in the words of Lord Denning: The new Employment Bill will be passed this session. It will be the greatest reform in trades union law over the last 80 years.

3.57 pm

Mr. Eric G. Varley (Chesterfield)

The Opposition oppose the supplementary guillotine motion and will vote against it. We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for showing flexibility in allowing the debate to take place.

It is difficult to know what to say about the Secretary of State's speech, because he did not address his remarks to why it was necessary to guillotine the discussion on the Lords amendments. He spent most of his time castigating trade unionists for supporting National Health Service workers. If he were fulfilling his role as Secretary of State for Employment, with all the other responsibilies that he is supposed to have, such as conciliation, he would urge his right hon. and hon. Friends, if they were so confident about their case, to let the dispute go to arbitration or at least ask the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to mediate meaningfully. However, he has not done that. He knows that the Government do not have much of a case. That is why he wants to divert people's attention.

I am sure that one of these days Mr. Sid Weighell, Mr. Frank Chapple and others will be able to speak to the Secretary of State direct. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Mr. Frank Chapple. I recall that during that great demonstration on 22 September Mr. Frank Chapple was on the platform in Hyde Park supporting the NHS workers and saying some rough things about the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Government. Therefore, it is no good the Secretary of State trying to divert people's attention by saying the things that he has said.

Mr. Tebbit

The right hon. Gentleman always says that I am not sufficiently conciliatory. Has he not noticed that I have said nice things about the chairman of the general council of the TUC?

Mr. Varley

The chairman of the general council of the TUC knows that this is the worst Government that trade unions have experienced. He is prepared to say that on any occasion when he is asked to do so.

Unlike the Secretary of State I want to talk about the Bill and its amendments. At every stage of the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have had so little confidence in their case that they have wanted to restrict the time for debate. There is no urgent need for this measure. On the contrary, when it reaches the statute book—as no doubt it will—it will bring about not an improvement but a deterioration in industrial relations. Even this Government and this Secretary of State will rue the day when the legislation is enacted. We know that the Secretary of State has doubts about the legislation, because some provisions will not be activated until some months ahead. The only provision that will be activated quickly is clause 1, which the Secretary of State wishes to use to compensate free riders.

Mr. Tebbit

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. There will be no undue delay in activating the provisions of the Bill. The provision for balloting on the closed shop will be delayed to allow proper time to prepare the ballots. The remainder of the Bill will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient and possible.

Mr. Varley

Does the Secretary of State wish to activate the ballots on closed shops before the next general election, assuming that it will not take place until the last humiliating moment in May 1984?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

It will be humiliating for the Labour Party.

Mr. Tebbit

I do not know when the general election will be. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give either one or two years' grace to allow trade unions to prepare for the ballot. I shall announce my decision on that when Royal Assent is given to the Bill. The provisions that give greater protection to trade unionists will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient to do so.

Mr. Varley

I take it from his reply that the Secretary of State will not activate that part of the Bill for two years.

The Labour Party believed that the purpose of today's debate was to enable the House to discuss the Lords amendments in the five hours devoted to the Bill. However, the time is inadequate. It is sometimes claimed that the House of Lords is a revising chamber. Some members of the other place suggest that it improves legislation that is sent to it. With the exception of amendment No. 1, the Bill returns to the House more hostile to the trade union movement than when it left us in June. It carries the Government's hostility and prejudice to the trade union movement even further.

In the House of Lords, if it seemed as though the trade unions were not being restricted enough, the screw was tightened further. Let there be no doubt that the Government are determined, at every opportunity, to weaken the trade union movement. The Bill increases the power to sack trade unionists selectively if they strike. As a result of some Lords amendments, the Bill now protects the employer who does not consult the trade unions to which his workers belong. The Government seem ready to set aside the legislative requirements on consultation that are contained in almost all of the major statutes that have brought industries into public ownership. Elected councils and local authorities cannot specify that a firm to be awarded a contract must consult trade unionists.

Members of the Liberal Party may say that they initiated Lords amendment No. 1, which is entitled "Employee involvement" although on the copy of the Bill that went through the Lords the title was "Employee participation". There is a difference between the two phrases, which I hope the Secretary of State or his colleague can explain. That amendment, which will form a new clause, is all very well as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. To give it the title "Employee participation" is nonsense. The Labour Party wishes to strengthen the clause and that is why we have tabled amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) will advance arguments to expose the inadequacy of the amendment.

If we are to take the Government seriously in their assertion that they are in favour of employee participation, it is nonsense to restrict the debate to two hours. The House should not support the supplementary guillotine motion, because of what the Secretary of State has said today and on other occasions. Anyone who has read the House of Lords debate on the Bill will see that Conservative supporters in the other place wish to have further legislation to restrict trade unionism. The Secretary of State is only too eager to oblige. We know that he is preparing what he chooses to call a discussion document. That is another name for a Tebbit diktat.

We are told that the Employment Act 1980 did not go far enough, that this Bill is part of the Secretary of State's step-by-step approach and that he will not be satisfied until effective trade unionism is eliminated. Before we pass the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State—or one of his colleagues—must tell us what further legislative attack he is planning on British trade unions. The Secretary of State does not give a fig for trade unions. He insults their elected leaders almost every time he opens his mouth. He does not consult them as did the old-style Conservative Ministers of Labour. He attacks previous Governments, as at the Tory Party conference, and attacks his Conservative predecessors, such as Sir Walter Monckton, lain Macleod and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Secretary of State has discovered that it is best to have a two-pronged and simultaneous offensive against the millions of men and women in our trade unions. The first approach is step-by-step legislation to reduce their effectiveness, and the second, and perhaps more effective, approach is to pursue industrial and economic policies that create mass unemployment. On the latter, the Secretary of State is an unqualified success.

We have been told many times by Tories that the Bill is about individual rights, which is why it must be guillotined and why we can spend only five hours on it today. However, 4 million individuals make up the ever-lengthening dole queues that the Government accept without a murmur.

The Labour Party protests about the further restrictions on the debate. The Tory philosophy embodied in the Bill and in the amendments, which we have inadequate time to debate, is that if we eliminate trade unions and create further unemployment the market will work even better. The trade unions have not created 3.3 million registered unemployed, nor have they brought about the lowest number of apprentices in modern times. The trade unions have not brought about the unprecedented fall in manufacturing output, nor have they brought about record bankruptcies and liquidations. The trade unions did not remove all exchange controls so that capital now flows across the exchanges and out of Britain. Nor did the trade unions cause the other horrors that have afflicted Britain during the past three and a half years.

We oppose the guillotine motion. Five hours in which to debate the amendments is inadequate, and that is why we shall vote against the motion.

4.10 pm

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

I shall detain the House for only a minute or two because I know how anxious hon. Members are to get on with the main debate. However, I was prompted to rise by one remark of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). He said that there was no great urgency to get the Bill on to the statute book. Recent events belie that statement.

For example, we heard from the Under-Secretary, in answer to a question of mine last Monday, that his Department had already—by last Monday—received about 50 separate complaints in writing from both individuals and groups of employees outside the Health Service. They had been compelled to take industrial action on the day of disruption, 22 September, simply by threats from their trade unions that disciplinary action, including expulsion, would be taken against anyone refusing to strike. In none of those cases were the employees involved allowed by their union to vote on whether to take industrial action.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to come to the House and make statements that may well not be based on truth when they have the option, before the debate, to go out and establish the truth? Is it not also—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must allow hon. Members to make the speeches that they desire to make. As long as they are in order I can make no objection.

Mr. Renton

I am quoting from a parliamentary answer to me from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. The answer was given a week ago, and I doubt whether it is incorrect in detail, except that I suspect that there are more complaints by now because another week has passed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

What proof?

Mr. Renton

It is surely intolerable that in this day and age individuals are compelled by their unions to take industrial action without being balloted, and under threat of losing their union card if they do not agree.

We have already heard of this sort of behaviour in the Health Service dispute. I wonder how many more cases we shall hear of in relation to the 24-hour steel disruption last Friday? What has that strike done for the British steel industry, which is in a parlous state? We know that the steel industry throughout the world is in trouble. We have heard the chairman of British Steel saying, when the steel industry unions went on strike on Friday, that the unions seem to think that they are living in a closed world that has nothing to do with their customers. Going on strike will not bring another order for British Steel or another job, but will once again convince British customers that, if that is what happens in BSC, the customers should "second source"—buy more supplies from the Continent or from other sources in the world, which is what they did in the 13-week strike two years ago.

What member of the steel unions was balloted to find out whether he wanted to 'take part in this damaging, 24-hour strike? Not one was balloted. The only contrary' instance of which I know is that of the staff association, a branch of Frank Chapple's union—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union. As I have already said in an early-day motion signed by 60 hon. Members, that union alone had the courage to tell its members not to go on strike on Friday because it knew what damage the strike would do to the British steel industry.

Thus, the sooner that we get the Bill on to the statute book the better. At least it gives the protection to the employee that if he is judged by an industrial tribunal to have been unreasonably expelled from his union, it will, according to the Act, be unfair to dismiss him for not being a member of a trade union that operates a closed shop in an industry or firm. He also has much greater protection if he loses his union card as a result of not joining in the industrial action.

Campbell-Savours

rose—

Mr. Renton

I shall not give way. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome the Bill. Let us get it on to the statute book as soon as possible and let us have a third Employment Bill in the next Session to give trade unionists a chance to demand secret ballots in their unions for the election of national officials, and before a national strike. Then we shall be on the course of returning control of trade unions to their members. That is what we want to achieve. We want not to reduce the power of trade unions, but to make them responsible to their members.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must tell the House, in case hon. Members are wondering what has happened to me, that I am aware that we are not talking about the timetable motion and whether this is the right time to have it, but are having Second Reading speeches. None the less, the debate will finish at 4.38 pm.

4.16 pm

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

I have a point to make specifically on the guillotine motion, but I shall precede it by commenting on three points that have arisen. As those observations were in order, I presume that my comments on them will also be in order.

I was shocked by the Secretary of State's speech. In any Government, one of the most important jobs is that of Secretary of State for Employment, because it is his job to try to weld both sides of industry together in a joint effort to get the best out of industry for the benefit of our economy, and therefore for the benefit of the nation. Past Secretaries of Stare, including the Conservative ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), have seen the importance of this role and have seen their task as one of creating bridges, getting people together and avoiding confrontation.

Secretaries of State such as Sir Walter Monckton and Robert Carr—the noble Lord as he now is—the most successful of Conservative Ministers of Labour, would have felt their skins shrivel if they had heard the present Secretary of State for Employment. I do not think that I have heard a more confrontational speech from the Front Bench in all the years that I have been here. I have heard similar ones from Back Benchers, including some from the present Secretary of State before he became a right hon. Gentleman, but Ministers should be more responsible. The Secretary of State's job is to get people on both sides of industry to work together, and he will not do that by consistently blackguarding those on one side.

The right hon. Gentleman licked his lips and quoted Frank Chapple on Left wing fiddling of elections. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the first fiddling of elections on a large scale in British trade unions was done by the Communists in the Electrical Trade Union, as it then was, by Frank Foulkes and Frank Chapple, the latter of whom has now gone full circle in his political views. He is a political authority on election rigging, because he was one of the first practitioners of it. I do not recall that the Secretary of State approved of what Mr. Chapple was doing when the Communists were ballot rigging in the ETU. It was most disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to pray that in aid.

I cannot imagine why the Secretary of State is laughing. He may recall that Oliver Goldsmith spoke about the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind.

Mr. Tebbit

rose—

Mr. Mikardo

I shall not give way to a giggle. Oh well, perhaps I will.

Mr. Tebbit

I was slightly amused, if I may express my feelings in the most gentle terms, to find the hon. Gentleman basing his attack on me on two things: first, that I had quoted the chairman of the TUC on the subject of lying and the manipulation of votes; and, secondly, that I had not mentioned that the Communist Party is the great expert in this practice and has been doing it for many years. It is very amusing coming from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mikardo

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that remark. I think that there is a slur and an innuendo in it. My record and reputation are such that I do not have to take the least bit of notice. There is a Portuguese proverb that if one stops to kick every dog that barks at one's heels one never reaches the end of one's journey. I shall not stop to kick that particular dog.

Another issue that arises is that of one or two years' grace. The parts of the Bill that are most repugnant to trade unionists will not be implemented in a hurry, and for good reason. The Government do not want, before the general election, a winter of discontent perhaps preceded or followed by a long hot summer. The Government know jolly well that when some parts of the Bill are implemented they will cause considerable dislocation in industrial relations. They do not mind. However, they want to get the general election out of the way first. The different times of starts of various parts of the Bill are based entirely on electoral considerations.

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) mentioned the damage caused by strikes in the steel industry. That is true. However, the damage is not nearly so great—I invite him to examine the figures—as that done by unregulated imports of steel and the totally uneven application of cuts by the European Coal and Steel Community in the steel producing industries of the member countries of the Community. A reduction in output after 1975 was agreed by the member countries on the basis that these would be shared fairly among the countries that produce steel. What is that fair share-out? One major steel producer has increased production. One has held its production still. The Germans have dropped their production by 10 per cent., and ours has dropped by a quarter. Of all the steel jobs lost in the steel-producing countries of the EEC since 1975, 43 per cent. have occurred in British Steel and only 57 per cent. among the other countries.

Mr. Renton

Is it not the case that the period when imports from other EEC countries into this country increased disastrously and when British Steel's share of the home market fell from over 70 to under 50 per cent. coincided with the 13-week strike two years ago? At that time many customers who had been loyal to British Steel decided that they had to find a second source abroad. As the hon. Gentleman will know, having been involved in international trade, once a new supplier has his foot in the door it is difficult for the old supplier with whom virtually all the business was previously done to oust the new supplier.

Mr. Mikardo

I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman is not right. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read evidence given by the corporation and its chairman to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. It is true that during the strike people bought elsewhere. However, the corporation has prided itself—I think, justifiably—on the fact that within a short period of the ending of the strike it recovered all that business. The damage has been done since that time. It is not steel from the Community countries that is mostly to blame. It is also steel from third world countries.

Before the Bill was introduced there was a good deal of consultation, with the circulation of Government papers upon which people were invited to comment. A great deal of material was submitted from many sources, which doubtless found its way to the Secretary of State's desk. Some may have been taken into account and some rejected. Not all points were conceded. Some were in conflict. Nevertheless, there was a process of consultation.

The Bill now before the House is a different measure, in some significant respects, from that which left us a few months ago to go to the other place. Some major new material has been introduced. These proposals could have been included in the Bill originally. If that had happened, the proposals would have been subjected to the same consultation procedure as occurred in respect of the rest of the Bill. There would have been an opportunity for people to consider how these matters would operate in practice and to present their views. No such opportunity exists in respect of the new matter that has been introduced during the Bill's passage through the other place.

Instead of imposing a guillotine on the last breath of the Bill, it would have made more sense if the Government had followed the tradition of Governments of all parties and provided time for trade unions, employers and many others affected by the Bill to give the same thought and attention to the new measures introduced in the Lords as was accorded to the measures contained in the original Bill. Rushing the Bill through the House at this stage means that the Government have made some major changes without providing the least opportunity for those affected to figure out how they will work and to give their views. This haste is to be gravely deplored.

4.27 pm

Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) reminds us that he has been an hon. Member for many years. With all respect, he has no reason to do so. Everything that he says reminds the House only too clearly that his own thinking is rooted 20 or 30 years in the past. The hon. Gentleman attacks Mr. Chapple for his crimes, as he would have the House believe them to be, when Mr. Chapple was a member of the Communist party 20 or more years ago. The hon. Gentleman may accept that Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth". Mr. Chapple's present performance, I suggest, makes up for all the misdemeanours or worse that the hon. Gentleman suggests that he may have committed in the past.

Mr. Mikardo

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chapple's present performance, which he praises, includes total opposition to this Bill?

Mr. Whitney

The hon. Gentleman goes too far. I had not gone so far as to praise Mr. Chapple. His present incarnation is a great deal better than his past. He is making progress. I hope that he will continue to make progress. There are many others in the political trade union sphere who, 20 or 30 years ago, were on the far Left and who now see the error of their ways. I hope that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will join them. The hon. Gentleman recalls from the past the days of Sir Walter Monckton and others on the Conservative Benches who had a different approach to the trade union problem. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the problem then was different from the one that we have now.

The task of getting Britain moving in the days of Ernest Bevin, George Woodcock and Vic Feather was very different from the task facing us today, bearing in mind some of the present members of the general council of the TUC. I am sure that what worries the hon. Gentleman, and also the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and all the other uncertain supporters of the attack on the Bill, is that they know that the problem lies with a very small handful of people, most of them at the top of the trade union movement, and not with the very large percentage of the trade union membership.

As the Minister of State, Department of Employment, suggested at the Conservative Party conference at Brighton, it is the spectre of democracy that is haunting people such as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and all the others who seek to defend the status quo. That is why there is a need for hurry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, the demonstration on 22 September showed clearly the power and the effect of the closed shop in ensuring that individual members of trade unions take action that they do not want to take. That is the reason for hurry. We must deal with the problem of dislocation in industry that is caused by the threat of trade union pressure operated by the closed shop.

I am amazed that, given the pressure on time today—we have been told that five hours are not enough—we have debated the motion for 50 minutes so far and no arguments of substance have emerged from the Labour Benches.

4.31 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

In listening to some Conservative Members speaking about democracy, and bearing in mind what a totally undemocratic organisation the Conservative Party is, it is clear that the trade unions do not need any lectures from Conservative Members on how to operate. Indeed, listening to the Secretary of State talking about trade unions was like listening to someone from the National Front talking about ethnic minorities. As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, one could see his almost obsessive hatred of trade unions. He had very little to say about the positive virtues of belonging to trade unions. Instead, we heard only criticism and a totally negative attitude.

The difference between several members of the Cabinet and the right hon. Gentleman is that he cannot conceal the loathing and hatred that he has for trade unions. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to make a speech about events in Poland there would be buckets of tears about the Polish working people and the repressive way in which the junta has wrongly—certainly in my view—banned Solidarity. But when it is a matter of the right of working people in Britain to build up effective organisations for themselves at their place of employment, the right hon. Gentleman is an enemy of genuine trade unionism in his own country. He will do whatever he can on every occasion to undermine free trade unionism.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though there were something sinister about one trade union giving authority to its executive council. What is wrong with that? In the case in question, the executive council would have been duly elected. I am a member of an executive council of a trade union, duly elected by secret ballot. It is part of trade union tradition, as it is part of the tradition of many organisations which have nothing to do with the trade union movement, that an executive council is given due authority in the absence of an annual conference. I do not see anything wrong with that.

When Conservative Members speak about trade union democracy, they do not mention that almost every trade union in Britain has provision for an annual conference—sometimes for a conference every two years—at which rank and file people, elected from the branches, can decide policy. If the other side of industry had anywhere near that form of democracy, it would be very useful for British industry.

As my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is an attack not just on the trade unions, but on working people. In many respects, mass unemployment has been brought back deliberately to discipline people. Month after month, the Secretary of State announces higher unemployment figures. He has not expressed any deep concern that millions of people are denied the right to work—not because of naughty, sinister, wicked trade unions, but largely because of Government policies. Millions of people have to suffer the penalty, the humiliation and the indignity of not being about to get a job, but that is not the right hon. Gentleman's concern. He can point to any excuse—world conditions, the recession, and so on—for what is happening to so many of our constituents, but his concern is to have anti-trade union legislation.

There have been many other occasions when anti-trade union legislation has been passed in the House because of the Conservative majority. We have only to remember the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman went into the Division Lobbies as a Back Bencher in enthusiastic support of that measure. But that Act was duly repealed. One could go back many years before 1971 in giving other examples—even starting with the combination Acts. Whenever action has been taken in law against the trade unions, they have always in time won back their rights and built on those rights. The reason why they have been able to do so is that they exist to defend the interests of the working people. There is no justification for trade unions except to act in the interests of working people. That is why they came into existence.

All the poison of the Secretary of State and his colleagues, all the loathing of the trade unions that they are expressing, and all the laws that penalise trade unions, will in the end come to naught. Despite the present Conservative majority in the House, working people will one day win back their right to act effectively at their place of employment. Long after the right hon. Gentleman has been forgotten, trade unions will rightly exist in Britain to defend the people that they exist to defend—the working people, manual and non-manual alike. No action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government can destroy that basic British freedom—the right to belong to a trade union and to defend one's rights at one's place of employment through membership of a trade union.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 223.

Division No. 319]	[4.38 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Brooke, Hon Peter
Alexander, Richard	Brotherton, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n)
Alton, David	Browne, John (Winchester)
Ancram, Michael	Bruce-Gardyne, John
Aspinwall, Jack	Bryan, Sir Paul
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)	Buck, Antony
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Budgen, Nick
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)	Bulmer, Esmond
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)	Burden, Sir Frederick
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Butcher, John
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Beith, A. J.	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bendall, Vivian	Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Chapman, Sydney
Best, Keith	Churchill, W. S.
Bevan, David Gilroy	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Blackburn, John	Clegg, Sir Walter
Blaker, Peter	Cockeram, Eric
Body, Richard	Colvin, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cope, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Corrie, John
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Costain, Sir Albert
Bowden, Andrew	Cranborne, Viscount
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Crouch, David
Braine, Sir Bernard	Dickens, Geoffrey
Brinton, Tim	Dorrell, Stephen
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Dover, Denshore	Lamont, Norman
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Lang, Ian
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Latham, Michael
Durant, Tony	Lawrence, Ivan
Dykes, Hugh	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lee, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Eggar, Tim	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Elliott, Sir William	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Emery, Sir Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Eyre, Reginald	Loveridge, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Luce, Richard
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell	Lyell, Nicholas
Faith, Mrs Sheila	McCrindle, Robert
Farr, John	Macfarlane, Neil
Fell, Sir Anthony	MacGregor, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fisher, Sir Nigel	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	McQuarrie, Albert
Forman, Nigel	Major, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Marland, Paul
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh	Marlow, Antony
Freud, Clement	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fry, Peter	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Mawby, Ray
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Mayhew, Patrick
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mellor, David
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Goodhew, Sir Victor	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Goodlad, Alastair	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Gorst, John	Miscampbell, Norman
Gow, Ian	Moate, Roger
Gower, Sir Raymond	Montgomery, Fergus
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Moore, John
Gray, Hamish	Morgan, Geraint
Grieve, Percy	Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Grist, Ian	Mudd, David
Grylls, Michael	Murphy, Christopher
Gummer, John Selwyn	Myles, David
Hamilton, Hon A.	Neale, Gerrard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Needham, Richard
Hannam, John	Nelson, Anthony
Haselhurst, Alan	Newton, Tony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Onslow, Cranley
Hawkins, Sir Paul	Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hawksley, Warren	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Hayhoe, Barney	Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Henderson. Barry	Parris, Matthew
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hicks, Robert	Patten, John (Oxford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Pattie, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Pawsey, James
Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Penhaligon, David
Hooson, Tom	Percival, Sir Ian
Hordern, Peter	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Pink, R. Bonner
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)	Pitt, William Henry
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Pollock, Alexander
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Porter, Barry
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Irvine, Bryant Godman	Prior, Rt Hon James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jessel, Toby	Rathbone, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Renton, Tim
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Rhodes James, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Kershaw, Sir Anthony	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Kimball, Sir Marcus	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom	Rifkind, Malcolm
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Knox, David	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Rossi, Hugh	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Rost, Peter	Thornton, Malcolm
Royle, Sir Anthony	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Trippier, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Viggers, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Waddington, David
Shepherd, Richard	Wakeham, John
Shersby, Michael	Waldegrave, Hon William
Silvester, Fred	Walker, B. (Perth)
Sims, Roger	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Skeet, T. H. H.	Waller, Gary
Smith, Dudley	Walters, Dennis
Speed, Keith	Ward, John
Speller. Tony	Warren, Kenneth
Spence, John	Watson, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Wells, Bowen
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Squire, Robin	Wheeler, John
Stainton, Keith	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Stanbrook, Ivor	Whitney, Raymond
Stanley, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Stevens, Martin	Wilkinson, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Winterton, Nicholas
Stokes, John	Wolfson, Mark
Stradling Thomas, J.	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Tellers for the Ayes:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. Anthony Berry and
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. Carol Mather.
Thompson, Donald

NOES
Abse, Leo	Davidson, Arthur
Adams, Allen	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Allaun, Frank	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Anderson, Donald	Deakins, Eric
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Ashton, Joe	Dewar, Donald
Atkinson, N.(H'gey)	Dixon, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A.T.	Dobson, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Dormand, Jack
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)	Douglas, Dick
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dubs, Alfred
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Duffy, A. E. P.
Bidwell, Sydney	Dunnett, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Eadie, Alex
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)	Eastham, Ken
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	English, Michael
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)	Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Evans, John (Newton)
Buchan, Norman	Ewing, Harry
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	Faulds, Andrew
Campbell, Ian	Field, Frank
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Canavan, Dennis	Ford, Ben
Cant, R. B.	Forrester, John
Carmichael, Neil	Foster, Derek
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Foulkes, George
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	George, Bruce
Cohen, Stanley	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Coleman, Donald	Golding, John
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Gourley, Harry
Conlan, Bernard	Graham, Ted
Cook, Robin F.	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Cowans, Harry	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Crowther, Stan	Hardy, Peter
Cryer, Bob	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Dalyell, Tam	Haynes, Frank

Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Pavitt, Laurie
Heffer, Eric S.	Pendry, Tom
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)	Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Homewood, William	Prescott, John
Hooley, Frank	Race, Reg
Hoyle, Douglas	Radice, Giles
Huckfield, Les	Richardson, Jo
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Janner, Hon Greville	Robertson, George
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
John, Brynmor	Rooker, J. W.
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Rowlands, Ted
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)	Sandelson, Neville
Jones, Barry (East Pint)	Sever, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Sheerman, Barry
Kerr, Russell	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Kilfedder, James A.	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Short, Mrs Renée
Kinnock, Neil	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lambie, David	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Lamond, James	Skinner, Dennis
Lestor, Miss Joan	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)	Soley, Clive
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spearing, Nigel
Litherland, Robert	Spriggs, Leslie
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Stallard, A. W.
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Lyons, Edward (Brac'f'd W)	Stoddart, David
McCartney, Hugh	Stott, Roger
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Strang, Gavin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Straw, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
McKelvey, William	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
McMahon, Andrew	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
McNally, Thomas	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
McNamara, Kevin	Tilley, John
McTaggart, Robert	Tinn, James
Magee, Bryan	Torney, Tom
Marks, Kenneth	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Marshall, D(G'gow S ton)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Wardell, Gareth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Watkins, David
Maxton, John	Weetch, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan	Wellbeloved, James
Meacher, Michael	Welsh, Michael
Mikardo, Ian	White, Frank R.
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Whitehead, Phillip
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Whitlock, William
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Winnick, David
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Woodall, Alec
Newens, Stanley	Woolmer, Kenneth
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Wright, Sheila
O'Neill, Martin	Young, David (Bolton E)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Palmer, Arthur	Tellers for the Noes:
Park, George	Mr. George Morton and
Parker, John	Mr. Ron Leighton.
Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Time for Conclusion
1	7.00 pm
2 to 14	8.00 pm
15 to 22	9.15 pm
23 to 41	10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

1. (a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b)Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii)put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
4. (iv)put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c)as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords 754 Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion

1. (a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b)Mr. Speaker shall then—
1. (i)put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;
2. (ii)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.