§ PROHIBITION ON UNION RECOGNITION REQUIREMENTS
Lords Amendment No. 15, after clause 11, insert:
B.—(1) Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require arty party to the contract—
- (a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or
- (b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named).
(2) A person contravenes this subsection if, on the ground of union exclusion, he acts in a manner falling within paragraph (a),, (b) or (c) of section 11(2) of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person acts on the ground of union exclusion if the ground or one of the grounds for his action is that the person against whom it is taken does not, or is not likely to, recognise, negotiate or consult as mentioned in subject: on (1) above.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following
- (a)the person against whom the action is taken; and
- (b)any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention
and any breach of that duty shall be actionable accordingly (subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty).
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 16 to 22 and 24.
§ Mr. Waddington
The new clause and the consequent amendments were tabled by the Government in another place to deal with a practice that came to light after the Bill left this House. It 3ecame clear that a number of local authorities were insisting that constractors must recognise and negotiate with trade unions, or have agreements with trade unions, about procedures before they could even 801 tender for contracts. It was equally clear that those recognition requirements were simply a means of evading the provisions of clause 11.
The Government believe that trade union recognition should be a matter for each employer and his own employees to decide for themselves. It is not something that should be forced on them as the price of their economic survival and the preservation of their jobs. The principle of trade union recognition is not at issue. What is at issue is whether we should permit trade union recognition to be enforced by commercial pressure and industrial coercion by one employer of another.
The clause will in no way cut across the nationalised industries' statutory obligations to consult recognised trade unions. It will not interfere with employers' statutory obligations to consult trade unions about redundancies or safety matters. No existing statutory obligations of employers are affected by the new clause. We are not talking about the relationship between an employer and his employees. The clause will not even prevent a client from imposing the most stringent and rigorous conditions on his contractors, whether in terms of health and safety, pay and conditions or requirements to inform or consult employees on matters which affect them, provided that those conditions do not amount to a requirement to recognise a trade union.
There is nothing in the clause that forces a client to do business with a firm that he considers has unsafe working practices or may put his employees' safety at risk. He must not use the safety requirements as a device to enforce recognition. The purpose of the clause is specific.
I must return to the local authorities, which are primarily responsible for our debating this matter. After the Bill left the House in May, it came to our attention that a local authority in Scotland—East Kilbride district council—had decided that from 1 October this year all contracts involving work for the council would include a provision requiring all contractors to have signed a recognition and procedural agreement with the appropriate trade union. Opposition Members may be interested to know that the local authority followed the debate in another place so closely that during the Summer Recess it decided to withdraw the requirement, because it realised that the practice was destined to become unlawful.
We can draw two conclusions from that episode. First, legislation can work with surprising swiftness. I doubt whether there are many other examples of a rotten practice passing through all the stages from creation to abolition before the legislation has passed through Parliament. Secondly, it illustrates clearly that the recognition requirement that the local authority wanted to impose on its contractors was no more and no less than an attempt to circumvent the provisions of clause 11.
That clause contains a provision to prevent local authorities and others from requiring contractors to employ trade union labour only. The recognition requirements imposed by some local authorities are not covered by that clause, because they do not necessarily mean that all the contractors' employees must be union members, but their effect is much the same, and, in our view, equally undesirable. First, they force trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. Secondly, they would exclude non-union firms from tendering for contracts. Thirdly, and consequentially, they would 802 restrict free and fair competition, and therefore raise costs and ultimately destroy jobs. Finally, it is entirely unreasonable to expect ratepayers to pay the price for the prejudice of certain local authorities against non-union firms.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the requirements about recognition and negotiation unlawful and to provide redress for those who suffer from them. Lords amendment No. 15 mirrors the original clause 11. It provides, first, that any requirements about recognition, negotiation or consultation which appear in a contract will be void and unenforceable. Secondly, it makes it unlawful to exclude someone from tendering, or to fail to award him a contract or to terminate a contract with him, on the ground that he does not recognise, negotiate with or consult a trade union or trade union official.
Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 are amendments to the original clause 12. They deal with the liability of a trade union in that position. They remove immunity from trade unions that take or threaten industrial action to put pressure on an employer to act in a way that is unlawful under the new clause or to discriminate on the ground of non-recognition.
The other amendments seek to remove immunity when industrial action is taken to interfere with the supply of goods and services because a supplier does not recognise, negotiate with or consult trade unions or trade union officials. I emphasise that all these provisions focus specifically on requirements about union membership and recognition. The voiding of a term in a contract requiring union membership or recognition, for example, does not affect the legal enforceability of other terms in that contract, nor does it invalidate the contract itself. Equally, it remains lawful to make it a condition of a contract that the contractor should observe any other provisions of a collective agreement, as long as the effect of doing so is not to require the use of union labour only or recognition.
We believe that the new clause and the amendments constitute an important addition to the Bill. They may not stop all those practices overnight, but they should act as a deterrent to their spreading and provide a remedy for contractors who suffer from them. As I said, there is some encouraging evidence that their inclusion in the Bill is already acting as a deterrent, even before the Bill becomes law. What has happened at East Kilbride is, in itself, justification for the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill. However, other councils have imposed these requirements on contractors, or intend to do so. I hope that they will follow East Kilbride's lead. I believe that the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill will encourage them to do so.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
When the Under-Secretary claimed that it was a victory for the Government's legislation that the East Kilbride local authority beat a swift retreat when it saw what the Government were preparing for it, he was really saying that it is a good example of the intimidation of a local authority by the Secretary of State. The Government have intimidated East Kilbride. The Under-Secretary said that the Government are anxious to stop local authorities foisting trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. I wonder how many trade union members in firms where employers will not recognise their unions and will not consult or negotiate with them were consulted about these provisions.
803 These Lords amendments became known as the East Kilbride amendments. I call them the Aims of Industry amendments. We spent more than 100 hours debating these matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and then at one fell swoop Aims of Industry achieved something that far surpassed what Parliament achieved. It has achieved the most important, serious, far-reaching and destructive amendments to the Bill.
Who consulted the employees? According to the Under-Secretary, they do not want trade union recognition foisted on them. I wonder how many mini-Grunwicks there are. There must be many. We quoted one or two in Committee, both on this Bill and on the 1980 Bill. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary said that they do not want it foisted upon them.
The Under-Secretary talked throughout about local authorities. Does he believe that these provisions are limited to local authorities? The Bill does not say that they are limited to local authorities. The provisions will apply throughout industry and commerce in the private and public sectors, wherever one company awards a contract to another or wherever an individual awards a contract to another individual. He said, as though to comfort us, that the person or firm awarding the contract can require the contractor to comply with almost anything—reasonable rates of pay; anything, so long as it will not strengthen trade unionism. It confirms what we have said time and again—that the Bill is deliberately aimed at undermining the trade union movement. He as good as said so in moving the amendment. He said that in awarding a contract one can require the firm or individual to do anything so long as it does not strengthen the trade union. There we have it.
The Bill, as drafted originally, caused us great concern, and we expressed that concern in votes both in Committee and on Report. The Government have now significantly widened and extended the original provisions. The Under-Secretary quoted them in part. The original Bill said:Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports—
They have now extended that voiding to make it unlawful to include in a contract any term that requires the person giving the contract to require those to whom he is giving the contract
- (a)to require that the whole, or some parts of, the work done for the purposes of the contract is to be done only by persons who are not members of trade unions or not members of a particular trade union; or
- (b)to require that the whole, or some part, of such work is to be done only by persons who are members of trade union or members of a particular union."to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named).The Under-Secretary might have reminded the House that both the original words and the amendments carry the provision that relates to those who may complain to the courts that they have been injured by the contravention of this provision. The new clause contains the wordsany other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention".I shall not bore the House by giving examples of all those who may be affected. However, it is important to recognise how sweeping the consequences may be if someone does not comply with either the new or the original or both provisions.
The Under-Secretary sought to reassure us that an employer would still have to comply with any statutory obligation to consult. Parliament has made these 804 requirements to consult. Section 17 of the Employment Protection Act requires consultation about the disposal of information. Section 99 of the Employment Protect ion Act 1975 imposes a duty on the employer to consult when there is large-scale redundancy. There is also section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Only last year, we had the transfer of undertakings regulations from the EEC. Those statutory obligations have been passed by Parliament, presumably intending that they should be observed, believing that they are in the public interest and that employers should do these things in the interests of good relations and of the workers on whose behalf the consultations take place.
It is surely not unreasonable for the organisation or individuals awarding contracts, knowing that an applicant submitting a contract is not complying with these statutory obligations, to say '`We do not consider that you are a good employer, and until you observe the law and behave consistently with it, we shall withhold our contract." I am told that this is the Governmet of law and order.
§ Mr. Waddington
Will the right hon. Gentleman point to any part of the amendment that would forbid a contractor from saying to somebody to whom he might give work that he must obey statutory obligations?
§ Mr. Walker
The new clause states:Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require any party io the contract—
I have referred to the statutory obligations upon an employer to consult his recognised trade unions. The Minister can interrupt me if I am wrong. I understand that if I as an individual, not a local authority, wish to award a contract for the painting of my house in Doncaster, and there are half a dozen painting firms, each of which suggests that it would like the contract, I can say that I do not want a particular firm because the management does not consult its workers on anything and will not recognize the trade union although it employs 10 employees, nine of whom are members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. However, the individual firm can say that Tebbit's law states that if one imposes such a term or condition in giving a contract, that contract is void. Is that right?
- (a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or
- (b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named)."
§ Mr. Waddington
I am open to correction, but I pose this question: are there any statutory obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring that apply only when there is a recognised trade union? The answer is that there is only one, which relates to safety representatives. Surely that is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Walker
I do not follow the Minister's point. Section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 requires the employer to consult the representatives of the independent recognised trade unions in his firm.
§ Mr. Waddington
We are talking not about whether there is a recognised trade union within a firm, but when one employer is trying to dictate to another employer when there is not a recognised trade union that there should be a recognised trade union.
§ Mr. Walker
I think that I see the Minister's point. He is either wilfully misunderstanding or is ignorant of my point. When in an establishment a substantial number, the majority, or perhaps all the employees belong to a union but the employer refuses to recognise that union and consequently refuses to comply with his statutory obligations to negotiate or to consult the union, surely it is reasonable for an organisation or an individual to take that into account in deciding whether he should award a contract to that firm. The management of that firm may be told that it is not a good employer, that it acts contrary to the public interest and the express wishes of Parliament, that it does not recognise the trade union to which the majority of the workers belong and which they wish the management to recognise, so it shall not be awarded the contract. Is the Minister telling me that once the person who sought the contract knows why he did not get it he can take legal action? Can he do that?
§ Mr. Waddington
That is a correct proposition. Why should the employer of one group of workers use commercial pressure to compel another employer to recognise a trade union? A simple issue is involved. The right hon. Gentleman used many emotive phrases. What has it to do with the first employer? What right does he have to exert commercial pressure for union recognition on the other firm?
§ Mr. Walker
I asked the Minister a simple question. He is now making another speech. I asked him whether I understood the position aright. He has confirmed that I understood it aright and that my proposition was correct.
The Minister is putting forward his opinion. He is pursuing the right policy, in his opinion. He asked why anyone should be able to stipulate the conditions with which a contractor must comply before he can get the contract. However, the Minister said earlier that anyone awarding a contract could insist on anything he liked—for example, with regard to wages—so long as he did not insist on anything in the contract that might help the trade unions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it is fine for anything else to be stipulated in the contract, but that it is wrong for the first contractor to say to the firm seeking the contract that the contract will not be awarded to it because it is a bad employer. It is a bad employer because it refuses to recognise the trade union to which all its employees belong and consequently refuses to confer on the employees the statutory rights that such recognition entails.
§ Mr. Mikardo
I understand the amendment to mean that it will be illegal for a contractor to put out tenders and to stipulate that nobody need apply who does not recognise trade unions, but that it will be legal for a contractor to put out a tender stipulating that he will give preference to firms that do not recognise trade unions. Nothing in this Bill would prevent that from happening.
§ Mr. Walker
With his enormous experience of such matters and the persuasive skill that he brings to all our debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has reminded me of another dimension to this argument. The Under-Secretary keeps trying to persuade the House that only local authorities would be affected by the provisions. My hon. Friend reminds me of an example that has nothing to do with local authorities and often nothing to do with the public 806 sector—the subcontracting of drawing office work in engineering, shipbuilding and related industries where a fair list is agreed with the technical, administrative and supervising section of the AUEW. The agreement between TASS and the Federation of Engineering Design Companies Ltd. is that work will be subcontracted only to firms that are on the fair list. In order to get on the list, firms must negotiate with TASS. The agreement was debated in the proceedings on the Employment Act 1980, when the then Secretary of State said that he understood the purpose of the agreement and did not wish to disturb it. That agreement would be abolished by these provisions. Similar agreements in other industries would also be affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can mention the print industry, where there has been a long-established practice of some unions in publishing refusing to handle work that does not carry the trade union stamp.
§ Mr. Walker
The Minister says "Shame". My father worked in the felt hatting industry where such an agreement had been in practice since the nineteenth century. Such agreements ensure that unions are defended against undercutting and exploitation of labour. The Minister's cry of "Shame" gives us a better understanding of why the Government wish to repeal the fair wages resolution. They are obviously in favour of the undercutting of wages and the exploitation of labour.
The Conservative Party wishes to withdraw the fair wages resolution because jobs in the public sector can then be exposed to a range of subcontractors who will offer jobs to the unemployed at cut-rate wages. Doors in the public sector will be thrown open to subcontractors who will prevent workers in most firms from seeking the right to negotiate and consult and to refuse to work with firms that do not recognise trade unions.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
Such trade union practices are long enshrined and they are designed to protect workers and their families. In addition to attacking such practices, the Government are now actively promoting breaches of the law. Under these provisions, if an employer refuses to recognise a health and safety at work committee, which must be composed of representatives of trade unions, a contractor cannot now insist that the employer recognises the committee, as is required by the law
The Minister said that it is the Labour Party's fault, but the law is on the statute book. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. This legislation means that if an honest employer says that he wishes to recognise a health and safety committee in order to ensure safety standards, he cannot do so because the contract will be rendered void.
§ Mr. Walker
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is right to remind us that it is an Act of Parliament passed by the elected representatives of the people. When the Minister sneers that the Labour Party is at fault, he should not overlook the fact that the Queen gives Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament, not to one side of Parliament.
§ Mr. Waddington
When the right hon. Gentleman accepts what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) 807 says, although he knows that it is wrong, he is not carrying out his duty to the House. Nothing in the legislation removes the duty on an employer to allow safety representatives to be appointed at the behest of a recognised trade union. The only issue is whether one employer is entitled to say to another "You had better recognise a trade union so that you can appoint a safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974". If the hon. Member for Keighley wishes to use such a convoluted argument to justify his case—
§ Mr. Waddington
—it exposes the naked attempts of the Labour Party to have union labour only clauses in the Bill.
§ Mr. Walker
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the Bill, he is turning his back on the arguments that he accepted from me a few moments ago, or he is trying to mislead the House about the consequences of the Bill.
During proceedings on the 1980 Act, I referred to Solar Tubes, a firm just outside my constituency but in which many of my constituents worked. The majority of the workers there wished to belong to a trade union, but the employer refused to recognise it. When some of the workers took industrial action to try to persuade their employer to recognise the union, he dismissed them. There were subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings in which the workers were successful. That was a case not of employees having trade unionism foisted upon them by an outside party, as the Minister suggested, but of employees who were members of a trade union and who wished to have the benefits of trade union membership recognised. It is no good the Government saying "We do not object to anyone belonging to a trade union, but we object to an employer recognising the union". One might as well belong to a worthless Christmas club if the employer does not recognise the trade union. As the employer refused to recognise the union, for the purposes of the Act it was not a recognised trade union and it could not insist on the benefits that Parliament intended for it, such as the establishment of a health and safety committee.
§ Mr. Waddington
There is a simple way round that, and I wonder why it was not accepted by the Labour Government. A non-unionised labour force could appoint health and safety representatives. However, the Labour Government set their face against allowing those rights to any body other than a unionised work force.
§ Mr. Walker
I am wasting my time in allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene. I wonder how the Minister became learned. I must refer to him in future as the hon. and "learned" Gentleman. We are talking about the law as it is and as the Government are trying to make it. The Minister is denying workers a way in which they might have secured recognition. A good employer elsewhere, which recognised the union, could have saidBecause we believe that you are a bad employer, we shall not give you contracts. You are a bad employer because you do not give your workers their due recognition and you do not comply with the statutory obligations.8.45 pm
The majority of people would say that it is a perfectly reasonable proposition that bad employers should have 808 pressure put on them to comply with the obligations imposed by Parliament. However, the Under-Secretary is protecting them, and he is asking Parliament to protect them.
§ Mr. Walker
The hon. and "learned" Gentleman will keep interrupting and making more long speeches which are either contrary to what he said before, or show an abysmal lack of understanding of industrial relations and the law in these matters.
When I was at the Department of Employment I seemed to be engaged interminably in trying to create some order out of the jungle of the construction industry, and that part that dealt with major sites. The hon. Member far Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) knows a lot about these matters. I am sure that he would agree that over the years there have been bad industrial relations in the part of the construction industry that deals with large sites.
An NEDC team went into this. All kinds of committees were set up and they finally came to the conclusion that the one major contribution to creating order out of this chaos might be a rational agreement for the construction industry. Eventually a national agreement emerged after a great deal of trouble. I was involved in the midwifery process, as was the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), to whom I pay tribute. The chairman of the committee was Mr. John Morris-Jones. The national agreement seemed to bring hope for good industrial relations to that industry.
It was an employer member of the industry who drew to my attention the fact that one of the conditions in that national agreement read as follows:The trade unions, signatory to this National Agreement are recognised as the sole negotiating trade unions for the employees covered by this Agreement.Employers will encourage all their employees covered by this Agreement to be members in good standing with a signatory trade union.Signatory trade unions will inform employers as to who is their local full time official and any subsequent changes.Contractors shall recruit (or deploy existing employees) from whatever source, those members of the signatory trade unions whom management considers to be most suitable for the task(s) in question.That condition becomes irreconcilable with the new requirements in the Lords amendment. All the good work that has gone into trying to improve and create new bases for industrial relations in that industry is put in jeopardy by these provisions inserted at the whim of Aims of Industry. It is motivated by political malice against Labour-controlled local authorities. The Government share that political malice and malevolence towards Labour-controlled authorities. They are pursuing that course heedless of the consequent harm that it will do to industrial relations. That is why I ask the House to kick the amendment back to where it came from.
§ Mr. Raymond Whitney (Wycombe)
As the debate goes on, the record from the Opposition sounds older and older. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) seemed to be playing a record dated about 1974 or 1975—those unhappy days when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Employment, was doing what Mr. Jack Jones told him to do. He operated the laws of this country as a recruiting sergeant for the trade union organisation—not for the trade 809 union members, but for the members of the general council of the TUC. I understand that the right hon. Member for Doncaster is stuck in that groove. If it was not understood before, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear by his intervention tonight.
The attitude of mind of Labour Members is deeply entrenched in the past in their relationship to trade union leaders rather than to present members of trade unions. I hope that they will try hard to bring themselves up to the present day. They must understand that the proposition that local authorities, or any other contracting authority, should act as recruiting sergeants for trade unions, which cannot recruit members by any other method, is not acceptable to the people. In his one attempt at humour the right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of discriminating against East Kilbride. I invite him seriously to consider the important discrimination that would be involved if we made the mistake of following the course that he proposes.
The real importance is that the contracts that are placed should reflect the interests, for example, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, of the good citizens of Doncaster. If the Doncaster corporation places a contract, it is not the business of the corporation to make sure that a particular employer has recruited enough men in a particular union. The union is, of course, free to try to recruit. It is, however, for the Doncaster corporation—this is the suggestion that I should like the right hon. Member to consider when he returns to the Chamber—to make sure, in the interests of the ratepayers of Doncaster or the taxpayers of this country that it obtains the best value possible for their money. Its duty is not to operate as a recruiter on behalf of a trade union executive.
§ Mr. Winnick
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should make no difference to a local authority in deciding where to award a contract if it is known that a firm which, in other circumstances, might qualify has the worst possible conditions for its employees, is notorious for the manner in which it treats its employees and denies them fair conditions? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the good ratepayers and the good citizens who make up the majority on the council should say that such circumstances are not relevant?
§ Mr. Whitney
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is the other side of the distorting mirror by which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster try to confuse the House. The amendment does not say "Thou shall impose those sort of conditions". It is not discriminatory in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It merely states that it shall not be an absolute condition that the company to which a contract is awarded shall have members of a trade union. The criteria has to be left to the contracting employer, the authority. That is surely right.
I could understand it if the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we go back to the days of 1974. However, the right hon. Member for Doncaster talked of the public interest. I suggest that the public interest goes far wider. It is the job of the trade union organisation in an enterprise to recruit or not to recruit. It has nothing to do with the authority. I commend the amendment.
§ Mr. Mikardo
The hon. Gentleman says that this is not discriminatory. It will now be illegal under the Bill for a 810 contractor asking for tenders to say that it is a condition of acceptance of an offer that the employer must recognise a trade union but perfectly legal for him to say that it is a condition of acceptance of the offer that the employer refuses to recognise a trade union. How can the hon. Gentleman say that this is not discriminatory?
§ Mr. Whitney
I am glad I gave way because it gives me the opportunity to clarify, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, the meaning of the clause. Obviously, he has misunderstood it. When he understands it I hope that he will join us in the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment. The discrimination would be to say, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, that the contracts would go only to those firms which had trade union membership. The amendment leaves it open. The firms may have trade union membership; they may not have it. I urge the hon. Gentleman to study the wording carefully and not to let his old-fashioned 1950s prejudices sway his judgment.
§ Mrs. Shirley Williams (Crosby)
I should have thought that it would be possible for the Minister to make it clear whether the supposition of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is correct. I take the interpretation of the amendment to be the one that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) gave—that it would rule out union only labour contracts, as has happened in East Kilbride. If it is suggested that a requirement can be made that only firms which do not recognise unions may have contracts placed with them, I can only say that that is not my interpretation of the clause, but it is possible for the Minister to deal with the question and I hope that he will do so, because the House has the right to ask for his interpretation.
We ought to be concerned about the matter of coercion both ways. I understand that the Government feel it necessary to block what might be an attempt to get round the closed shop, which has been rejected in clauses 11 and 12, by the East Kilbride method. In other words, the Government are trying to plug a loophole which East Kilbride has found under which the local authority can, in effect, enforce the closed shop at one remove. One sees that the Government do not want that loophole to be used in a way that enables authorities to get round the intentions of the House.
In so far as the Government have seen, in East Kilbride and in some other local councils, an attempt to use the local council as a recruiting sergeant for unions, as the hon. Member for Wycombe put it, they have a point. It is a form of coercion to refuse to allow small business men to be on local councils' tender lists when the employees may not wish to join a union. It must be the role of the House to defend the right of individuals to join or to refuse to join a trade union. To that extent, I understand what the Government are trying to do. Many small business men whose employees are not union members ought to be allowed to tender for jobs provided by local councils. Indeed, to some extent our criterion ought to be the interests of the consumer, of the tenant of the council estate, and so forth. The man who does a good job ought to be considered for tenders.
§ Mrs. Williams
It should not be decided simply on the basis of whether union or non-union labour is involved. That is why, if the amendment meant what the hon. 811 Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said it meant, I should be equally opposed to it on that basis. That should not be the criterion. The criterion should be the job that the tenderer does. That should be the basis upon which he gets contracts.
§ Mr. Michael Martin
On the question of the consumer's rights, when a local authority makes it plain to the electorate that it has a policy of employing only contractors with trade union members, and when that electorate consistently elects Labour-controlled authorities, surely that authority is entitled to say that it is truly representing the people who have elected it. In the city of Glagow, which I served as a councillor, we made no secret of the fact that we had that policy, and the Labour majority increased over the years. Local authorities are testing opinions.
§ 9 pm
§ Mrs. Williams
I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is an immediate problem. The electors who elect a Labour council may go on to elect a Conservative Government who are committed to changing the union rule.
Coercion can work both ways. The Minister did not respond to the question of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about what happens in certain areas of the private sector. Most of us have in mind the construction industry. In the Green Paper on trade union immunity, direct reference is made to the danger of an undercover attempt to bring about the same result. The issue was considered so serious that the Green Paper did not recommend the sort of proposal in amendment No. 15. It suggested, for example, that there might be attempts to refuse to encourage the fair list and to force it underground—to have unwritten clauses in contracts that might in practice become binding on the contractor. The Government must deal with that.
The Government must also answer another question. In substantial areas in the private sector, again particularly in the construction industry, reasonable conditions of health, safety and work generally do not obtain. In many cases the union is the only safeguard. The Government seriously undermine their case by deciding to rescind the fair wages proposition of 1946 and the accompanying International Labour Organisation resolution No. 94 of 1949. The Minister must reply to the right hon. Member for Doncaster. We have never debated the matter. If the Government argue that fair conditions and wages and fair health and safety precautions can be maintained, even though the protection of the unions is removed, why have they removed the non-union safeguards of the ILO and the resolution passed in 1946? It arouses suspicion when the Government rescind those agreements and resolutions and finally move to rescind the powers of unions to obtain fair conditions.
§ Mr. Dan Jones
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) makes the same point that I made earlier. The Secretary of State has not been properly advised in formulating the part of the Bill dealing with accidents in industry, and the Lords have not corrected it. Accidents occur frequently, with calamitous results for the person involved and sometimes for the factory. The person may suffer a serious injustice if he is not legally represented.
812 I am pleased that the Secretary of State is now in the Chamber. I hope that he will listen carefully. I repeat that he has not been correctly advised.
I have had direct experience over many years of what I am saying. A person may be seriously injured or killed. We in AUEW call in our legal men to inspect the site where the injury took place and if we find that it has resulted from neglect a man could prosecute the company concerned and receive substantial compensation. That is not generally known except in the industry and by progressive trade unions. Last year, we sometimes collected hundreds of thousands of pounds from such employers. That depends entirely upon trade unions being able to perform such legal functions. There should be far more effort in that direction.
That is not always the case. As a result, there is neglect in industry. By and large, employers would not like the backlash of such action. It is obvious that companies that are not subjected to that type of surveillance can produce products more cheaply. Fortunately, the majority of employers are respectable, but venomous employers are being allowed into industry and they will undermine those who play the game and who should want such people taken to task.
We should recognise that possibility in the Bill or abandon the Bill. If we do not, the Government will find that respectable employers wall object. They want such action. Working-class people who are not members of trade unions—there are many—have been exploited. It would be a point in the Government's favour to recognise that. If they do not, they will surely regret it.
§ Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)
The contracting industry warmly welcomes the banning of union membership only contracts but is wondering whether the Government are going for overkill with regard to the East Kilbride problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two points.
First, is it up to the subcontractor or the main contractor to introduce adherence to fair wages for the national working rule agreement if the client does not specify? Secondly, as union members only carrying out contracts is to be banned, will it be in order for contractors to encourage their workers to join trade unions?
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)
I should have thought that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who was apparently speaking for the contracting industry, would be worried about the way in which that industry has been contracting, and about the coercion of that industry by the absence of work for the people in it and by the absence of profit for the people who run it. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions and everything to do with the fact that no one can afford to pay for the work that they want done.
Throughout the debate, Conservative Members and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) have talked about coercion I wonder whether they realise what is going on in industry today. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions being entitled to recognition. It has everything to do with money and the fact that small businesses that Conservative Members purport to love are being forced to close in my constituency because big businesses will not pay them the money that they owe. It has much to do with the fact that small businesses are unable to operate because they are 813 being squeezed out of business by the coercion of those who can afford to cut-rate them out of business when there is no money around and no work for their employees in my constituency or anywhere else. The coercion is on trade unions because their membership is shrinking because there are no jobs. It is the coercion of unemployment that is afflicting this country.
The Bill is irrelevant to anything that matters to the people in my constituency or, I should have thought, anywhere else in the country. It is a contrived and evil irrelevance designed to take people's minds off reality and to rally the troops behind the Secretary of State for Employment, who sits there like the Thinker of old working out ways to rally his forces—or perhaps he is asleep, as he is certainly asleep to the real coercion in the contracting industry and elsewhere.
One Conservative Member spoke of casting one's mind back to the past, so let us do that. In 1981, the Conservative Government brought in a Bill designed, they said, to strengthen the hands of "responsible" trade unions. That is not their purpose now. They have only one object now—to destroy responsible trade unions—and they are pursuing that objective with the ferocity and determination of people who see no other cause behind which to rally their forces.
The Minister referred to emotive language. Emotive language is, of course, what other people say when they wish to make a point. I suppose that it is non-emotive to say that the trade unions are trying to protect their members. That is their job. They are there to look after their members. They are in business to protect their members at a time when—thanks to the Government—that protection has never been more needed.
The Bill is designed to remove even more of the unions' power to protect their members—as though enough had not been removed already because their members are afraid to take industrial action from fear that there will be no jobs to come back to.
The weakness of the trade unions has little to do with past legislation. That is why we have the Bill. It is to do with the fact that there are no jobs in this country. In those circumstances, the clause is designed to give employers the freedom to employ those who do not enter into agreements with unions whereby the employers are required to recognise, negotiate or consult.
In the 1980 Act, the Government removed the rules which required a procedure for recognition. In the Bill they seek to remove the freedom of local authorities to bargain in the way that they see fit. Of course, it is freedom when employers have the right to do or not to do, but coercion when local authorities have that right.
§ Mrs. Shirley Williams
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the numerous questions that have been put to the Minister, who appears to wish to reply, is there any chance of a reply to the debate?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has the Floor. It is a matter for him.
§ Mr. Janner
I am very much obliged. I cannot wait to hear the Minister reply. Before he does so, however, we have some questions to ask him.
First, why at a time of the highest unemployment does the Minister wish to bring in this irrelevancy?
814 Secondly, does he care whether trade unions continue to exist to protect their members or not?
Thirdly, why does he seek to remove from trade unions the right to be recognised at a time when recognition is more essential than ever?
Fourthly, why does the Minister have the humbug to bring in a Bill which requires consultation when it does not matter, while taking away the right to require consultation when it does?
§ Mr. Waddington
I shall write to all the hon. Members to whom I am not able to reply now. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) raised an important point. The fair wages resolution will be debated in due course, but it is a red herring in this debate. Even after the fair wages resolution is revoked, it will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose conditions on another contractor as to the wage rates which he should observe. It will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose any amount of conditions on another contractor. The only condition that he must not impose is that there must be membership of a trade union or the recognition of one.
§ It being fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 234.817
|Division No. 322]||[9.15 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Butcher, John|
|Alexander, Richard||Carlisle, John (Luton West)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Alton, David||Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Chalker, Mrs. Lynda|
|Ancram, Michael||Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Chapman, Sydney|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)||Churchill, W. S.|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Banks, Robert||Cockeram, Eric|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Colvin, Michael|
|Beith, A. J.||Cope, John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Corrie, John|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Costain, Sir Albert|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Crouch, David|
|Best, Keith||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Dover, Denshore|
|Blackburn, John||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Blaker, Peter||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)|
|Body, Richard||Durant, Tony|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Dykes, Hugh|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Eggar, Tim|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Elliott, Sir William|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Brinton, Tim||Eyre, Reginald|
|Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Fairgrieve, Sir Russell|
|Brotherton, Michael||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)||Farr, John|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Fell, Sir Anthony|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Buck, Antony||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Budgen, Nick||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles|
|Forman, Nigel||Marlow, Antony|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Fox, Marcus||Mates, Michael|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus|
|Fry, Peter||Mawby, Ray|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Mellor, David|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Goodhew, Sir Victor||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Gorst, John||Moate, Roger|
|Gow, Ian||Monro, Sir Hector|
|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)|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Mudd, David|
|Grist, Ian||Murphy, Christopher|
|Grylls, Michael||Myles, David|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Neale, Gerrard|
|Hamilton, Hon A.||Needham, Richard|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hannam, John||Neubert, Michael|
|Hastings, Stephen||Onslow, Cranley|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Hawksley, Warren||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
|Henderson, Barry||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Hicks, Robert||Parris, Matthew|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Patten, Christopher(Bath)|
|Hill, James||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Pawsey, James|
|Hooson, Tom||Penhaligon, David|
|Hordern, Peter||Percival, Sir Ian|
|Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Porter, Barry|
|Irvine, Bryant God man||Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Jessel, Toby||Rathbone, Tim|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Renton, Tim|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Knox, David||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Lamont, Norman||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Lang, Ian||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Latham, Michael||Rossi, Hugh|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rost, Peter|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Lee, John||Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Loveridge, John||Shepherd, Richard|
|Luce, Richard||Shersby, Michael|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Silvester, Fred|
|McCrindle, Robert||Sims, Roger|
|McCusker, H.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Smith, Dudley|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Speed, Keith|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Speller, Tony|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Spence, John|
|Major, John||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Marland, Paul||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Squire, Robin||Viggers, Peter|
|Stainton, Keith||Waddington, David|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Walker, B. (Perth )|
|Stanley, John||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D|
|Steen, Anthony||Waller, Gary|
|Stevens, Martin||Walters, Dennis|
|Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)||Ward, John|
|Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Stokes, John||Watson, John|
|Stradling Thomas, J.||Wells, Bowen|
|Tapsell, Peter||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Wheeler, John|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Whitney, Raymond|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wickenden, Keith|
|Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Thompson, Donald||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Trippier, David||Mr. Anthony Berry and|
|van Straubenzee, Sir W.||Mr. Carol Mather.|
|Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Abse, Leo||Douglas, Dick|
|Adams, Allen||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Allaun, Frank||Dunnett, Jack|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Eadie, Alex|
|Ashton, Joe||Eastham, Ken|
|Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||English, Michael|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Ennals, Rt Hon David|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Evans, loan (Aberdare)|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Ewing, Harry|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Faulds, Andrew|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Field, Frank|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)||Fitch, Alan|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Ford, Ben|
|Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)||Forrester, John|
|Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)||Foster, Derek|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Foulkes, George|
|Buchan, Norman||Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Campbell, Ian||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||George, Bruce|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Cant, R. B.||Golding, John|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gourlay, Harry|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Graham, Ted|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)|
|Coleman, Donald||Hardy, Peter|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Cook, Robin F.||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cowans, Harry||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Crowther, Stan||Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)|
|Cryer, Bob||Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Home Robertson, John|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)||Homewood, William|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hooley, Frank|
|Davidson, Arthur||Howell, Rt Hon D.|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Huckfield, Les|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Dewar, Donald||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Dixon, Donald||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dobson, Frank||John, Brynmor|
|Dormand, Jack||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Robertson, George|
|Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roper, John|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lambie, David||Ryman, John|
|Lamond, James||Sandelson, Neville|
|Leighton, Ronald||Sever, John|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Sheerman, Barry|
|Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Litherland, Robert||Short, Mrs Renée|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)||Skinner, Dennis|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Snape, Peter|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Soley, Clive|
|McKelvey, William||Spearing, Nigel|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Spriggs, Leslie|
|McMahon, Andrew||Stallard, A. W.|
|McNally, Thomas||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Stoddart, David|
|McTaggart, Robert||Stott, Roger|
|Magee, Bryan||Strang, Gavin|
|Marks, Kenneth||Straw, Jack|
|Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)|
|Maxton, John||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Tilley, John|
|Meacher, Michael||Tinn, James|
|Mikardo, Ian||Torney, Tom|
|Milian, Rt Hon Bruce||Urwin, Rt Hon Tom|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)||Wardell, Gareth|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)||Watkins, David|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Weetch, Ken|
|Morton, George||Wellbeloved, James|
|Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Welsh, Michael|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||White, Frank R.|
|Newens, Stanley||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Whitehead, Phillip|
|O'Neill, Martin||Whitlock, William|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Palmer, Arthur||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Park, George||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Parker, John||Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)|
|Parry, Robert||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)|
|Pendry, Tom||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Winnick, David|
|Prescott, John||Woodall, Alec|
|Race, Reg||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Radice, Giles||Wright, Sheila|
|Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)||Mr. Frank Haynes and|
|Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Mr. Hugh McCartney.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 agreed to.