Closed Shop

HC Deb 13 April 1983 vol 40 cc892-914 10.14 pm

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

I beg to move, That the draft Code of Practice on Closed Shop Agreements and Arrangements, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

The draft code of practice before us tonight is a revised version of the one that the House approved about two and a half years ago. At that time the House also approved the code on picketing. The fact that no changes have been found necessary to that code is of itself an answer to those who claimed that the Employment Act 1980 would be defied. I am not sure whether even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and his colleagues will include a commitment to the flying picket and the disorders of the Grunwick picket line in their election manifesto.

The revision of the closed shop code is needed for two reasons. First, the code has to be amended to take account of the changes brought about by the Employment Act 1982. As a result, section B, which explains the main provision of the law, has been extensively revised and there are consequential amendmente elsewhere. The second reason why the code needs revision is that, unfortunately, the closed shop is continuing to cause substantial injustice to individuals.

I know that among those who yell "conscription" at the mention of the youth training scheme, let alone the youth training scheme in the armed services, there are those who have no qualms about the conscription of the closed shop. I regret to say that abuse of the closed shop is still rampant.

On 22 September last a number of unions sought to force their members to strike without consultation, without ballots, without votes and without any democratic process whatsoever. Few of those unions behaved worse than the National Graphical Association, which threatened its own members with fines and even expulsion if they did not obey the strike call. Some 30,000 NGA members defied the bullies and stayed at work. Let the NGA members speak for themselves: For the first time in 35 years' membership I came face to face with union bully boy tactics ordering me to throw aside my conscience, walk away from my job, dishonour my contract of employment, break the law—all in the cause of confronting a democratically elected Government. That was said by one letter writer to the NGA's journal. Another said: I would like the National Council to explain to the ordinary members what gives them the right to call us out on strike without a ballot, or even consultation of the rank and file members. Another of those letter writers said in his own union's journal: Why is it that once some of our union officials get elected they seem to feel they have the divine right to dictate and impose their own views—on the members they represent—instead of representing the views of the members as they are elected to do? Of course, the answer is simple. They were able to do it because of the closed shop. Those are just some of the letters published in the NGA journal, which had to admit that letters had poured in on that subject.

Mr. John Evans (Newton)

All three letters.

Mr. Tebbit

Is the hon. Gentleman going to challenge me on the number of letters that went into the NGA's journal?

Mr. Evans

Three out of 30,000.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute arrant nonsense. The NGA journal did not say how many letters, but it said it was forced to publish some. More than three were published because many letters had come into its offices.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)

How many?

Mr. Tebbit

I do not know. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) will have to ask the editors of the NGA journal. The journal says: "Massive support". That was how Print reported the NGA's role on the day of action. The headline in their own journal is "Goodbye to Freedom". It was goodbye to the freedom of their own members. I have here some of the letters that were published.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

In case my right hon. Friend thinks that only the NGA has been behaving in that way, is he aware that 25 representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union, some of them lifelong Socialists and shop stewards, came into the offices of the Burton Conservative association begging me[Interruption]—to ask the Secretary of State for Employment to take action against the closed shop, which was destroying their trade unionism because they had been forced either to stay out on strike when they had not been balloted, or had been fined for disobeying the requirements of their union shop stewards?

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. and learned Friend describes the position well. The amount of noise, the shouting, the yelling and the abuse that comes from Opposition Members when they are faced with the facts is interesting. It is characteristic of the kind of union meetings which we all too often see on the television screens in our own homes.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney), who is a Whip, chooses to shout abuse as well. If he wishes to make a speech, he may well catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

Did not the Secretary of State ever do that? He was one of the worst.

Mr. Tebbit

There could be no better illustration of the intolerance and the detestation of the democratic process than what is happening this evening—[Interruption.] Many union members suffered discrimination during that dispute. I know that about 30,000 NGA members defied the strike call that day. No one can say how many of the 30,000 have been summoned to union disciplinary proceedings.

Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)

Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that?

Mr. Tebbit

Because the union has not released the figures.

Mr. Leighton

There are not any.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) says that there are none. There were attempts, as he knows, and the NGA had to write to its branches warning then that they could be running into serious trouble if they did take action.

Mr. Leighton

Not one.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Member claims that not one has been penalised. It is known that 30,000 members were threatened by their own union before the strike was called and told that they would be subjected to disciplinary processes.

Last year there was the ill-fated railway strike that damaged not only British Rail but the trade unions as well. The National Union of Railwaymen has taken action against 12,000 of its own members.

In doing so, it has sparked off the formation of a rival union. Indeed, ASLEF imposed penalties of £10 a day on trade unionists who went to work. The Civil and Public Services Association and the Post Office Engineering Union have taken action against members who have been refusing to take part in protests against the privatisation of British Telecom.

Mr. Leighton

Is the Secretary of State in favour of that new railway union, and would he recognise it?

Mr. Tebbit

It is not for me to say. I am not the industrial relations manager of British Rail. There is no reason why I should say which unions should be recognised by British Rail, and it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

Mr. Leighton

The Secretary of State may speak in the House, but his words carry outside it. Is the right hon. Gentleman encouraging a splinter union? Does he think that that is good for industrial relations?

Mr. Tebbit

It was the punishment of 12,000 NUR members that sparked off the union's formation. II was nothing that I have done. It is merely an interesting situation that has been created by the NUR.

Mr. Leighton: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.

Mr. Tebbit

I know that I have not answered the hon. Gentleman's question and I am not going to, because it is not for me to answer.

Mr. Leighton

Why did the right hon. Gentleman raise the issue if he is not going to answer it?

Mr. Tebbit

This is a new version of debating. The hon. Gentleman asks why I asked his question and then did not answer it. I know that the hon. Gentleman would be disappointed if I did not refer briefly to Sandwell. However, I shall do so only briefly. Professor Gennard has set out the appalling facts of Sandwell with great clarity in chapter seven of his most interesting and valuable report.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

The Secretary of State has referred to a passage from the Gennard report. Why was he not prepared to make it available to hon. Members?

Mr. Tebbit

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, because it is available to hon. Members. I have placed a copy in the Library.

Mr. John Evans

When? How many copies?

Mr. Tebbit

How many copies does the hon. Gentleman want to read? I must tell the hon. Gentleman first that there is also a photocopying machine in the Library and secondly—

Mr. Leighton

On a point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I or my secretary use the photocopying machine we see an inscription on top which refers us to a ruling of Mr. Speaker. I think that it refers to the fact that we can make photocopies only of so many pages. I understand that the scholarly and thorough report of Professor Gennard consists of more than 300 pages. May I have your assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that hon. Members can use the photocopying facilities in the House to copy more than 300 pages of the report commissioned by the Secretary of State, which he is not prepared to print?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is not a point of order for me. However, I find it difficult to hear what the Secretary of State is saying.

Mr. Tebbit

Of course, I would not presume to judge whether that was a point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that he is quite wrong. The regulation of the House concerns the number of copies of each page which may be taken. I think that he can take 12 copies of each of the 350-odd pages.

So the hon. Gentleman can happily occupy himself providing them for his hon. Friends as well.

Mr. Leighton

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

I cannot give way as this is a short debate.

Mr. Leighton

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

If the hon. Gentleman would stop shouting, the debate could proceed more easily.

My second point to the hon. Gentleman is that I understand that Professor Gennard will be publishing his work in book form as well before too long.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

We can all buy it.

Mr. Tebbit

That is absolutely right, and the hon. Gentleman does receive certain allowances and emoluments for his work as a Member of Parliament.

Finally I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that I did not commission the inquiry. It was commissioned during the time of the Labour Government.

Mr. Leighton

The Secretary of State is relying on it. He is frightened to publish it.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

If I had threatened that 30,000 NGA members might be hauled before the courts for taking part in an unlawful dispute or if the courts had fined ASLEF members for going on strike or had taken action against 12,000 NUR members, there would have been screams about provocation and Fascism, complaints to the ILO and references to the United Nations charter and probably to holy writ, too. But those trials, those fines and those penalties were levied by trade unions against their own conscript members in closed shops. I come to the House not to drag—

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Leighton

Which fines?

Mr. Tebbit

The fines on the ASLEF members.

Mr. Leighton

We are talking about the NGA.

Mr. Tebbit

It would be in the interests of the House if we had a slightly more orderly debate.

Those trials, those fines and those penalties were levied by trade unions against their own conscript members in closed shops. I have come to the House today not to bring in the law to drag trade unionists to court to be charged, convicted and punished but to free them from those very risks.

I turn to the detailed changes in the code, which is designed to protect trade unionists and other workers against these abuses. I remind the House that, as is our practice, this revised code has been the subject of consultation and the response to that consultation has been favourable. The consultation process was carried out with all of the public. The trade unions were invited to comment in detail. As hon. Members will see, we have strengthened the provisions to protect trade unionists who refuse to take industrial action. First, we have added a new provision to make it clear that disciplinary action should not be taken where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the industrial action was unlawful. Secondly, the new code sets out a list of circumstances in which unions should not discipline members who refuse to take industrial action. The most important of these circumstances are where there has been no ballot, where the action is unlawful or in breach of a procedure agreement or where the action constitutes a serious risk to public safety and health. Who would believe that unions should be free to fine and expel members who refuse to take industrial action in such Circumstances?

Mr. Eric S. Heifer (Liverpool, Walton)

You seem to be doing it very well in the Tory party.

Mr. Tebbit

It seems that there is no one in the House who would want unions to fine or expel members in such circumstances. I am glad that there is such broad agreement.

Mr. Leighton

rose—

Mr. Tebbit

This guidance is more than just words on a page—

Mr. Leighton

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tebbit

It is linked to the right—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) to restrain himself. It seems clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Leighton

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Secretary Tebbit.

Mr. Tebbit

rose—

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and the House generally were challenged by the Secretary of State, who said, in effect "Is there anyone in the House who is prepared to say that a trade union has a democratic right, if it decides by a democratic decision"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a point of argument and not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Tebbit

This guidance is more than just words on a page. It is linked to the right, in section 4 of the Employment Act 1980, of a trade union member not to be unreasonably expelled from his union in a closed shop. As the House will know, the 1980 Act does not define what is to be regarded as unreasonable expulsion. However, it makes clear that in determining whether an expulsion was unreasonable or not a tribunal must always take the code into account wherever it is relevant. The new provisions in the code will mean that union members who complain to industrial tribunals that they have been unreasonably expelled for refusing to take part in industrial action will have the protection of the law if there has been no secret ballot, or if the action was unlawful or if any of the other circumstances that are in paragraph 61 apply. That, I believe, will be a powerful incentive to trade unions not to take such action in the first place.

The changes in paragraph 61 are undoubtedly the most important changes to the existing code. However, other aspects of the code's guidance have been strengthened where appropriate. For example, in the light of the experience at Sandwell, we have strengthened paragraph 39 so that the code now makes it clear that either party can terminate a closed shop agreement by giving specified notice, and this notice should not exceed three months. Paragraph 39 also provides that, notwithstanding any period of notice specified in a agreement, a closed shop should cease to have effect immediately if it is approved in a ballot in accordance with the statutory requirements that we have laid down. All these changes are designed to ensure that closed shops, where they exist, operate by consent and not by coercion.

The revision of the code is only one part of the process that we set in motion with the 1980 Act. It is the process of safeguarding those who are forced to work in a closed shop. The law on the closed shop which we inherited from the Labour Administration provided no safeguards apart from narrowly defined grounds of religious objection. It was that legislation that led to the railwaymen's action in the European Court of Human Rights, yet the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and his party pretend that that judgment never happened. If elected, they now propose, I understand, to revert to the 1976 legislation, despite the fact that the court's judgment, as Professor Gennard says in his report, did appear to show that between 1976 and 1980 the legislation on dismissals for non-union membership in a closed shop situation had been a clear contravention of the European Convention of Human Rights".

Mr. Leighton

Why cannot we have a copy of the report?

Mr. Tebbit

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be capable of making good use of it—

Mr. Leighton

Perhaps other hon. Members might be able to do so.

Mr. Tebbit

Although he might be able to make better use of it tomorrow.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield will tell us whether his party now accepts the judgment of the European court, and if so why, nevertheless it has proposed to return to the law of 1976. I shall happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

This code, like the 1982 Act before it, does not prevent closed shops from continuing to operate if they have the support of the overwhelming majority of their members and if they are operated flexibly, tolerantly and decently. The code cannot teach tolerance to the intolerant, but by explaining the law in clear and simple terms and by laying down minimum standards that must be observed, it will protect many trade unionists and other workers against the injustice and intolerance that has been associated for many years with the abuses of the closed shop.

10.40 pm

Mr. Eric G. Varley (Chesterfield)

I do not think that the most charitable hon. Member can say that the Secretary of State has contributed much to good industrial relations in the 25 minutes that he has spent at the Disatch Box. When he calls for orderly debate I immediately think of the years that he spent before 1979 sitting below the Gangway, and of him having graduated to some academy of good parliamentary behaviour. He is in no position to lecture any Opposition Member about how to behave in debate. He was in the good bovver boy persuasive manner today which we have all come to expect of him.

All the photocopying nonsense and the irrelevances have been trotted out. It is obvious that Conservative Members have taken the lead from the Secretary of State. They are not remotely interested in industrial relations. They are interested only in being spiteful and vindictive about the British trade union movement. They have come in for a bit of fun and to find out what mud slinging abuse we shall get from this semi house-trained polecat.

I say that just to show that if that is the type of debate which hon. Members wart, they can have it. Everyone can do it, but it is not at all effective. We are told that this is the right hon. Gentleman who will some time be the Secretary of State for the Home Department. God help Britain if the Secretary of State for Employment is in charge of hanging and flogging here. He could then use his talents to the full.

I shall now deal with the debate and whether anything that the Secretary of State said contributed to good industrial relations. He commented on the Gennard report. They were snide comments that met with approval from Conservative Members. He asked why we do not use the photocopying machine, and the rest of it. That is a dereliction of duty. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to the House.

The honour of the Minister of State is at stake. Time and again the Minister of State gave the impression in Committee that once the report was produced it would be made freely available. By that we meant that it should be printed and made available to every hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. Placing one copy in the Library does not fulfil any obligation. If every hon. Member present wanted a copy, they could not have one.

I telephoned the Department and was told that I could have a copy on loan provided that I returned it in due course. The Department can have it back in due course, but it will take a long time to read. In any event, it is not as good as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is a good piece of research. It is all on the one hand and on the other hand, but if the Secretary of State quoted Ciennard in defence of what he advanced today with regard, for example, to strikes over the introduction of a closed shop, he would find that page 221 shows that in the 20 years from 1962 to 1981 there were 85 stoppages and only 27,000 workers took part. About 24 million people have been gainfully employed during that time. However, the Secretary of State does not want hon. Members to study the report and has restricted its circulation.

Tonight we are debating the Secretary of State's latest little attack on the British trade union movement. The code of practice is a tiny measure when taken alongside the dangerous primary legislation of the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982, but it is a step in the Government's attack on free trade unionism. The practical effect of the Secretary of State's codes—I use the words "Secretary of State's codes" because they are not ACAS codes—remains obscure. The provisions are enforceable only indirectly. Failure to observe any provision of the code would not in itself render a person liable to court proceedings, but the codes are admissible in evidence before a court, and industrial tribuanl or the central arbitration committee.

I do not know whether the Secretary of State's codes—both the forerunner to the one before us tonight and the one on picketing—have played any significant part in industrial relations. This code will be much more relevant after 1 November 1984, when nearly all the existing union membership agreements will not count as approved, to use the language of the legislation. Despite his bluster, this fearless Secretary of State for Employment does not wish to test his 1982 legislation on closed shops this side of a general election. he has admitted that and has said, "Let us not disturb it at the moment. Let us see if we can catch the general election. Then we shall implement it and take care of any trouble that may arise from it." Despite all the cheers that he receives, he is really a coward. He says that he wishes to test this legislation, but we all know that he will not allow it to be tested before a general election.

The TUC's attitude to the code was made abundantly clear, at some length, to the Select Committee on Employment on 9 February. The congress believes that the Secretary of State's principal aims are to place further obstacles in the way of effective trade union organisation, to encourage non-trade unionism and to challenge the procedures of some unions. Trade union leaders are now so convinced of the Secretary of State's malevolence towards them that they will not even talk to him. I do not know whether he is proud of that fact, or whether he likes it, but he complains occasionally that they will not talk to him. Every time that they have gone to see him, as far as I know, they have been met with a stream of abuse similar to that which we hear in the House. Who can blame trade union leaders for not wishing to talk to him?

The Secretary of State knows that the trade unions will never reconcile themselves to this legislation or to the code of practice. They will continue to campaign against it, and will maintain their internal procedures, such as the Bridlington principles, if necessary in defiance of the law. They will boycott ballots on union membership agreements—

Mr. Tebbit

rose—

Mr. Varley

I am not giving way to the Secretary of State. It is not worth it.

Mr. Tebbit

rose—

Mr. Varley

I am usually willing to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he spoke for 25 minutes, with scant regard for anything concerning industrial relations, so I shall not give way to him tonight—not until he treats the House with much more respect.

As I was saying—[Interruption.] It is no good the Secretary of State's shouting. He had better learn that he is not pushing around civil servants in the Department of Employment or shouting at trade union leaders in Caxton House, but talking to the House of Commons; and it is about time that he was responsible to the House of Commons, too.

The trade unions will boycott ballots and union membership agreements. They will withdraw their members from tribunals in cases involving union membership agreements. But the scepticism is not confined to the trade unions. Employers' associations, too, question the code's value. The Institute of Personnel Management, the country's leading management organisation on industrial relations, is also opposed to the way in 'which the Government have gone about this business. That body is opposed to periodic reviews of the closed shop on the basis that it will result in further complications and would worsen industrial relations.

About the code of practice the Institute of Personnel Management said: The Code, in stressing the rights of an individual employee, has tended to over-simplify the highly complex industrial situation. Why, for instance, should the sentence of the original Code (para. 37) which recognised 'the interests of the individuals as well as unions and employers' be changed (para. 49 Revised Code) to 'the interests of individuals' only? The problem of multi-union situations have been given insufficient weight. The freedom to choose whether to become a trade union member or not needs to be distiguished from the freedom to join any union. There is lots more of that. The principal organisation dealing with personnel management is saying that the Secretary of State is not right in his conclusion.

The fact must be faced that the Government have slowly but quite deliberately set about reducing the effectiveness and influence of working people organised through trade unions. Their philosophy is quite simple. It embraces the notion that the market works better with weak or ineffective trade unions. Gone are the days when successive Tory Ministers of Labour would call in the Trades Union Congress for consultation on a basis equal to that of employers' associations. On the contrary, as I have already said, the Secretary of State takes a studious delight in insulting the elected representatives of workers every time he opens his mouth.

For the time being it suits the Government to keep the TUC representatives on the councils of ACAS, on the Health and Safety Commission, on the Manpower Services Commission and on the National Economic Development Council. Neither the Secretary of State nor any of his right hon. and hon. Friends will be heard at this stage saying that they would like them off. But we know that those very trade union leaders are unwelcome visitors to No. 10 Downing street and the Treasury, and we know, too, that they have been driven out of the Department of Employment.

Ironically, it has not been the legislation of 1980 or 1982 or the code of practice that has reduced trade unions' influence. The one reason above all others for the diminution of their influence is that it is the Government's unique achievement to turn the country into a depressed area, afflicted by mass unemployment. So the code of practice and the Acts from which it derives have much more to do with trade union influence if and when the economy ever recovers from the slump.

The Secretary of State peppered his speech with the rights of individuals and minorities. Individual rights are important but we shall not take any lectures from him about them. The meanest of all measures was initiated only two months after the Government took office when, after a short debate, again on a statutory instrument which was approved, hundreds of thousands of individuals were robbed of the right to go to industrial tribunals to appeal against unfair dismissal. Again, it was the same Secretary of State who only a few months ago, talking about individual rights, took away the rights provided under the fair wages resolution. Only two or three weeks ago it was the same Secretary of State who twisted the arms of the wages councils to reduce by £1.4 a week the wages of workers' with a gross pay of about £60 a week. This bold, strong Secretary of State for Employment concerned about individual rights—this £700 a week Secretary—had the brass neck to tell wages councils paying non-union members £60 a week that they must have their wages reduced by £1.24. Therefore, we shall not take lectures from him about individual rights.

The tragic thing about this code of practice and the motivation for this legislation is that, slowly and systematically, the unions are being forced into a wholly defensive, dangerous and negative position. The stage is being set for bitter conflict which will damage the whole nation unless the Government come to terms with moder, free trade unionism.

The position of the individual worker is still very weak in relation to his employer. The financial strength and colossal power of the trans-national company is enormous compared with that of the individual employee. Workers can improve and protect their standards only through combined organisation.

Of course there are sincere people who have deeply-held and genuine conscientious, and in some cases religious, objections to belonging to a trade union. They have rights too. But as the Department of Employment discovered for itself after specially-commissioned independent research, individuals who fall into that conscientious category have in the overwhelming majority of cases, in agreement with management and trade unions, been able to keep their jobs.

There is the other side of the argument. Anyone who has worked on the factory floor knows of the deep resentment to the free rider—the man or woman who takes all the benefits of trade unionism but does not contribute a penny to the organisation. In fact, there is some resentment to the free rider in other areas of society. It extends well beyond the trade union movement.

This code of practice has little to do with improving industrial relations. It has more to do with undermining stable industrial relations practices. We may never know how effective, ineffective or divisive the legislation is. It may be swept off the statute book before too long.

The real art of government in industrial relations is to try to get trade unions to use their power and influence—they do have power—in the service of the whole community. I do not know any union member who does not want to work for a successful firm or in a respected, worthwhile community service. However, few men and women can look to their firms and regard the future as secure. Trade unions must be seen not just as one part of the collective bargaining process but as part of our wider democracy.

If the whip of unemployment is applied hard enough, or if the Law Lords are set on to them, the trade unions may look ineffective for a while, but such a policy cannot last.

It is the easiest thing in the world to introduce a Bill, bludgeon it through Committee, guillotine it and get it on the statute book, but that does not necessarily improve industrial relations and the Secretary of State knows it. We shall overcome the formidable problems facing the country only by talking to the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman does not want that, which is why he laughs. He does not want to improve industrial relations, because it does not suit his book.

About 14 months ago, Mr. Pat Lowry, the chairman of ACAS, gave the Shell lecture on industrial relations, and asked how the alienation factor in industry could be reduced. He answered: Certainly, not by new laws or by industrial relations policies based on little more than the fear of unemployment … the emerging school of 'Macho Management' (at least in the extreme way it tends to be characterised) offers little by way of long-term solution. Industrial relations will certainly not thrive on the basis that 'Vengeance is mine'. Every time the Secretary of State opens his mouth about industrial relations, that phrase goes through my head. "Vengeance is mine" shrieks out every time the Secretary of State speaks about the trade union movement. That is why we shall vote against the code.

11 pm

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)

Having listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), many hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel a sense of acute depression. Boring, sterile and divisive—those are the words that come immediately to mind. The speech was reminiscent of the futile argument that the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members indulged in during the Committee stage of the Employment Bill last year. Most of the hours available to the Committee were spent in expanded—to put it politely—discussion of clause 1, which dealt with the retrospective rights of, at most, 400 people—

Mr. Leighton

It was because of the Gennard report.

Mr. Renton

I shall refer to the Gennard report. Discussion of the rights of 400 people to retrospective damages for dismissal in the 1970s meant that we lost any possibility of real discussion of the following clauses, which were of far more importance than clause 1 to the trade union movement.

In some of his jovial interruptions, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mi. Leighton) kept asking where was Professor Gennard's report. Professor Gennard's report has been available for a long time to anyone who wants it. I understand that every member of the Select Committee on Employment was issued with a copy of it.

Mr. Leighton

No.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

rose—

Mr. Renton

I shall finish my sentence.

Mr. Craigen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I received a copy of the Gennard report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.

Mr. Craigen

I am not certain whether the other members of the Committee received a copy of the report. All members of Parliament should receive copies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is a point of information, and the hon. Gentleman has now made it.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Newham, North-East, who was a friendly opponent of mine in Committee on the Employment Bill, knows very well that he could have got a copy of the Gennard report if he had wanted one. To waste time in this short debate making points about the non-availability of the Gennard report is to indulge, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, has done, in futile argument. The new code on the closed shop provides matter for serious discussion. There are points to be made about matters that are far more important than the availability or non-availability of the Gennard report, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I had never thought of him as a man deprived of his rights, but, if he is, copies of the Gennard report will no doubt fall on him tomorrow like manna from heaven.

I believe that the code on the closed shop is of considerable importance. I welcome it because it is helpful in elucidating the points made in the 1982 Act but, as in the case of any code of practice, there are important questions to be answered. I do not believe that anyone in the House at the moment knows exactly how the codes of practice will work or what is their status in law. I hope that the Minister will deal with these questions when he replies. There may be confusion as to what is law and what is advice.

Section C, entitled Practical guidance on closed shop agreements and arrangements", makes various suggestions as to what should be contained in a written closed shop agreement. Paragraph 39(v) suggests that it should provide that an employee will not be dismissed if expelled from his union for refusal to take part in industrial action". I am sure that all Conservative Members agree that that is an excellent sentiment, but is it law? Points of that kind deserve to be examined far more closely.

Like the Institute of Personnel Management, I greatly welcome this elucidation of the principles of the Employment Act 1982. I agree with the institute that the new parts of the code are a useful guide to management and trade unions, but I foresee a danger that those who have to operate the code will not know which parts of it are law and which are merely advice. It is very complicated. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this when he replies to the debate.

Codes have not so far been widely tested before tribunals or in courts of law. It is therefore fair to ask how persuasive my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State thinks that they will be when admitted as evidence. Will they be regarded in the same way as precedents? Will they have the same force as the ACAS disciplinary code? As we all know, any employer would do well to consider that code carefully before dismissing someone because he knows that the code will be seriously regarded if the case is taken to an industrial tribunal. In the Minister's judgment, will the same apply in the case of closed shop agreements?

To me, those points are far more relevant to the code of practice on the closed shop, which is a major departure, than the points raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.

Both in the Chamber and in Committee the closed shop seems to be regarded as a virility symbol, notably by Labour Members. Opposition Members with union connections do not consider sufficiently seriously what is happening in law because they are carried away by their emotions. In saying that, I declare an interest not just as a member of APEX but as president of the Conservative trade unionists. [Interruption.] I know that that always provokes a Pavlovian cheer from the Opposition, and I am delighted that that is so, but I remind them that the Conservative trade unionists are a growing body of people while some of the organisations that they represent are declining rather rapidly.

When, from 1984, 80 per cent. of those in closed shops have to vote for the continuation of those closed shops, the question whether the employee membership wish those closed shops to continue or not will really be put to the test. That will be the testing time.

I am amazed that hon. Members have not discussed that point more. That is the issue. It is easy for them to get worked up about the closed shop and the code of practice. It is worth reminding Opposition Members that we are one of the few countries in the European Community that has closed shop arrangements and that most other EC countries do not have closed shop arrangements to anything like the same extent. In West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, for example, the closed shop arrangement is barely countenanced in law. The same applies to the United States where under the right to work at least 20 states ban closed shop arrangements. So we are out of touch with modern practice.

When the 80 per cent. rule comes into play there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to judge whether the closed shops are working in the interests of employees. That is the profound question: do closed shops exist for the protection of union members and employees, or simply to further the power of union officials? That is the key question. From 1984 that will be put to the test in the ballots and we shall be able to find out—

Mr. Tebbit

I hate to have to correct my hon. Friend, but it is important to say that the 1984 date is not the starting date for the ballots. That is the deadline by which the ballots must have been made, otherwise the closed shops will be unprotected.

Mr. Renton

I would have expected my right hon. Friend to correct me on that. I take his point fully; it is the latest date at which the ballots have to take place. It is at that stage that we shall learn whether most employees really believe that closed shops are working in their interests. It is to that that Opposition Members who, like myself, are members of trade unions should be directing their attention rather than to whether they have obtained a Copy of the Gennard report.

11.12 pm

Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

Anybody who was concerned that the cause of the so-called British disease was our failure to come to terms with industrial relations will have been slightly depressed by the opening of the debate, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said. Both Front Benches tend to see these matters as virility symbols; they think that they are expected to go through certain forms for the benefit of their supporters. The Secretary of State in some of his more extravagant language did nothing to give us confidence that in introducing these codes of practice he is trying to foster good relations. I urge him to try to keep the old Adam under control and to remember that he has wider responsibilities than pleasing the backwoodsmen in the Tory party on this matter.

Equally, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) again seemed only to offer, should he ever hold office again, to sign a blank cheque for what the trade union movement wants. That is no way forward either. It is dangerous for his party to appear only to want to do that.

Given the tenor of the Secretary of State's speech, it is worth emphasising that these guidelines do not abolish the closed shop. He tried to give the impression that he was slaying the dragon and that it would soon be dead at his feet. He is not destroying the closed shop.

Yesterday I obtained a copy of Professor Gennard's report. I can understand why the Secretary of State does not want to legislate abolishing the close shop. Professor Gennard said that the majority of closed shops were the result of peaceful negotiations, aimed at promoting stable industrial relations and formed on the basis of an existing high voluntary membership. He said that most closed shops safeguarded the individual.

The professor said that the compulsory membership of closed shops boosted TUC membership by about 8 per cent. We are talking about an institution covering 4½ million workers which is thought by many employers to promote good relations.

Mr. Tebbit

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNally

I would rather not, since the Secretary of State made a long speech earlier.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents what I said. In my closing remarks I said that the code, like the 1982 Act, does not prevent closed shops from continuing to operate if they have the support of the overwhelming majority of their members.

Mr. McNally

The Secretary of State always puts in a saving clause for future quotation. I was talking about his speech as a whole, together with comments to other audiences. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes makes it difficult for us to go along with what he says.

We shall support the Government this evening. The Opposition have probably done enough damage to their case by their farmyard antics in front of the Secretary of State. They should pause to wonder why 40 per cent. of trade unionists voted Conservative at the last election. Was it not because successive Labour Governments have tried to reform the trade union movement and have come up against the vested interests that make the noise tonight? That vested interest disallows the Opposition from contributing to a solution to our industrial relations problems. That is why so many trade unionists have no confidence that the Labour Opposition would contribute to a strengthened trade union movement. The movement: will not be strengthened by a Labour party willing to sign any blank cheque put before it.

The movement will serve itself better by winning members on the basis of benefits and service rather than on the basis on coercion. Nothing in the proposals should be regarded as destroying the trade union movement, but some provisions may build platforms for malcontents to stand upon. The Secretary of State should beware that in the code of conduct he does not encourage union splits.

Since Donovan we have tried to encourage a rationalisation of the trade union movement. The Secretary of State should not encourage the splitting up of unions in the code of conduct because that will cause problems. High compensation levels are unrealistic. High approval percentages are dangerous because an artificially high hurdle may lead to resentment. A trigger that is too easy to pull for consultation by ballots could cause problems in the future.

Mr. Leighton

The hon. Gentleman is both for and against.

Mr. McNally

We are not both for and against. Trade unions should see in opinion poll after opinion poll the way that union members are voting. There is ample evidence that trade unionists are worried about the power that is in trade union hands and the way that it is being used. The Opposition do not argue for the strengthening of the trade union movement as a constructive and democratic institution by defending every abuse and every vested interest to the last ditch.

I want to see a strong trade union movement that wins members because it has the workers' confidence. I want to see a democratic trade union movement so that the members have control of it. That is what we are committed to and that is what so many members of the official Opposition are afraid to put to the test. Ballots will not always produce the result that Conservative Members imagine. The secret ballot gave us Mr. Scargill and he stands with that strength behind him. However, how many of those hon. Members, for example, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not here, who have backed every attempt by Mr. Scargill to take his members out on strike, have found that they are grossly out of touch with the thinking of the miners?

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

The miners' union is the most democratic union.

Mr. McNally

If that is so, let other unions follow that one in implementing consultations with its members.

We shall not go along with the official Opposition in backing every vested interest in the trade union movement. We want a democratic trade union movement that would be invited to take its proper place in the consultations to determine the country's economic and social policy priorities.

We shall work for a strong democratic trade union movement and we shall see what this code of practice contributes to that end.

11.22 pm

Mr. Peter Lloyd (Fareham)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally), with, I hope, all his party, has made up his mind that he will vote for this code. What has stnick me about the debate is the extraordinary lack of confidence of Opposition Members. If the closed shop were so appreciated and liked by union members this code—as is the case with large parts of the 1980 and 1982 Acts—would be a dead letter and November 1984 would arrive with a cascade of votes in favour of continuing the closed shop.

The Opposition take the attitude that they do because they do not believe that that will happen. The TUC is not even going to campaign to win the votes. It is trying to prevent votes being taken. I think that is the best comment that we could have of how the Opposition feel that the closed shop is regarded by union members.

I welcome the code, as I believe all Conservative Members do. I believe that it is sensible to set out the law and to show how it should be kept. The code will be needed by managers and employees, not just to read for their general information, but for the occasions when they need to know what it contains and when it is impractical to go to the complexities of the statute.

However, I remain uncomfortable, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) about the quasi-statutory status of the code. Surely it is not necessary to say in the Act that the codes can be taken into account if the tribunal thinks that they are relevant. Surely the tribunals are allowed to take into account any evidence, including the codes if they regard them as relevant. I do not understand, nor, I suspect, do many other hon. Members, precisely what their legal status is. Perhaps we shall learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), to whom I am about to give way.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Surely the principal reason for embarrassment is that this document has, as my hon. Friend says, a quasi-legislative effect, but there is no possiblity of amendment or of considering the matter in detail. We have either to take it or leave it.

Mr. Lloyd

That is absolutely right. I hope that we shall take it, although I should like the codes to be differently constructed.

I shall take one example, in paragraph 62, which states: disciplinary action should not be taken or threatened by a union against a member on the ground that he has crossed a picket line which it had not authorised".

Supposing that a union organiser made such a disciplinary threat. Would he be acting unlawfully? Would the person against whom the threat was made know that he had protection in law? I suspect that he would not. The mixture of guidance about the law and advice on good practice is confusing. There will be too many occasions when, after reading the code, those who want clarification and want to know where they stand will not know.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Will my hon. Friend go a little further in his reservation about the code of practice, following what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, and remark that this is the fifth occasion in this Parliament when the Select Committee on Employment has been asked to look at a code of practice? Does he agree that that practice is growing, certainly with regard to this subject, and ought to be diminished?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend is right. I agree with him. The House has heard him and noted his point, as, I hope, has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Opposition Members were complaining that they had not read the Gennard report. I know that some of them have because I heard some of them comment on it. The hon. Member for Stockport, South referred to the closed shop. He said that legislation did not appear to be needed because the closed shop seemed to be widely accepted. Of course, it is widely accepted. It is a fact of life. Closed shops were created by agreement between employers and trade unions. No wonder they are accepted as part of the landscape. However, that does not mean that they are a popular part of the landscape.

The hon. Gentleman said that the closed shop does not cause problems for many people, but Gennard makes it clear that some 490 employees have been dismissed because of the closed shop since 1970. Conservative Members find it incomprehensible that Opposition Members think it proper that dismissed employees should be able to apply to a tribunal to argue the justice or otherwise of their dismissal over any matter of dismissal except when it involves a union and the closed shop or expulsion from a union. I see no justice in that.

A much better argument from Gennard why legislation is not necessary is that the evidence shows that the closed shop contains the seeds of its own destruction, with its tendency towards restrictive practice and inflexibility. Despite what is said about it being the means that enables management and unions to come together to work out more efficient working practices it has, certainly in the older industries, promoted a transfer of jobs to much less strongly organised trade union sectors, and alternative ways of getting the same jobs done. Work has passed from the industries where the closed shop is strongest. The closed shop has succeeded in reducing employment in those areas.

The most obvious effect of the closed shop is that it leaves the members feeling that they have no choice in the matter. It may be, as Gennard states, that unions are often lenient when disciplining their members. In many respects, members might not have to worry about disciplinary action being taken against them. The average member does not appreciate that, and cannot easily make that calculation. He assumes that he has no choice. The code confirms that he is wise to do so.

Paragraph 61 on page 20 states when disciplinary action should not be taken. If the average member examined those circumstances, he would find few that fitted him. He may come to (d) and say to himself "This should apply because there has been no ballot to affirm the industrial action. "Someone may remind the members that the draft code of practice is not a list of laws but a code of practice. It is the Government's opinion of what good practice ought to be. The member will say to himself, unless he is a hero or peculiarly obstinate, "I had better take the safe course", and does so.

The only way in which a really just position can be reached for the average union member is by the House legislating that dismissal for non-union membership is ipso facto unfair, whatever the circumstance. Whatever Opposition Members have tried to pretend, the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and these codes come nowhere near that. It would be much better if they did. That would suit not merely the union members but the unions themselves. I am constantly amazed by Opposition Members who simply do not appreciate that if they rely solely on the loyalty of their members and their own ability to attract them into the respective union, they would stay much closer to their members than they do, and would be more effective and stronger than they actually are. Much of the criticism that the unions have attracted during the past few years would evaporate if they relied entirely on freely given loyalty.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

Is the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) aware that in the debate on the Employment Act 1980 the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and I moved and seconded an amendment to make the closed shop illegal and that it was his party's members on the Committee who voted against it?

Mr. Lloyd

Yes, I think I do remember that. The objective of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is right and it is I suspect shared by the Government. The question is the means and the speed with which one moves towards it. I have no complaint that the Government are moving at a set and sedate pace towards that goal and are making changes that are acceptable and practical as the time arises.

It is no coincidence that the unions fell in public esteem when the closed shop was gaining in strength.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Before I call the next hon. Member, it would be helpful if I remind the House that the debate is due to end at 11.45 pm. The Minister is hoping to catch my eye to reply to the debate.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) informed us that he was the president of the Conservative trade unionists. Should not he inform the House of his substantial directorships, which are listed in the Register of Interests? Is he not guilty of misleading the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is customary for interests to be declared, but it is up to each hon. Member to decide whether and how to do so.

11.34 pm

Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally), the spokesman for the Social Democrats. The speech was typical. He began by condemning and criticising the Government and then told us that his party would go into the Lobby to support the Government.

I was a member of the Standing Committee that discussed the Employment Bill. To the credit of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), his attendance at our sittings was excellent. He sat through our late night sittings on the Bill. However, the attendance of the Social Democrats was absolutely deplorable, to say the least. It ill becomes any Social Democrat Member to lecture us in the Chamber on industrial relations, when the Social Democrats had an opportunity to speak up on the Bill that mattered.

The 80 per cent. ruling is nonsense. If we applied that ruling to ourselves, no hon. Member that I know of would be elected to the House. Therefore, we are applying standards to closed shops and trade unionists that we do not apply to ourselves. That is the type of hypocrisy that we are used to from the Secretary of State. Not enough thought has been given to our sub-contracting industries. An employer and his trade unions might be quite happy with the closed shop. However, a sub-contractor who employs non-union labour could arrive on the scene, and all hell might be let loose as a result. Therefore, good industrial relations could easily be destroyed as a result of the code of conduct.

The Secretary of State and the Social Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockport, South, mentioned the role of the full-time officer. The theme has always been the same—no full time officer should be able to dictate to the members. Anyone who knows anything about full-time officers, knows that they carry out the instructions of the membership. When negotiating with full-time officers, many employers ask them, "Why cannot you do this or that with your members". In other words, the employer is always looking for more power on the part of the trade union officer. Therefore, the Government and employers cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they want the trade union officer to exert more authority, but on the other, they say that no full-time officer should be allowed to bring anyone out on strike.

The other myth is that the Government apparently think that as a result of the code of conduct and the legislation, closed shops will somehow disappear. Closed shops existed before we had legislation on them. They will exist whether or not there is legislation or codes of conduct. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows nothing about industrial relations. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex mentioned the United States of America. He does not know much about the trade union movement there if he thinks that they do not have closed shops because they are outlawed. I would be very offended if I thought that the Secretary of State was suggesting that people with deeply-held religious convictions had any problem in closed shops.

When I worked in a closed shop—a closed shop agreed between the employer and the men—I worked with people who had deeply held religious convictions. They were never discriminated against. Anyone with a deeply held religious conviction received the respect of the men with whom they worked. I served my apprenticeship on Clydeside where there is a good record of trade unionism. I know of the respect given to men with deeply held religious convictions. I hope that the Secretary of State is not suggesting that there is such discrimination.

The trade unions will come down heavily on the chancers. There will be a great many chancers because the Secretary of State has made it possible for every rag-tag and bobtail to claim that he or she is being victimised. Strathlyde regional council has an appeals committee to determine whether people have deeply held religious convictions. One character came before the committee claiming that he had a deeply held religious conviction. When he was asked about that deeply held religious conviction he stated that he used to go to church. He could not name the church. Ater a while it was discovered that he went to Sunday school when he was six years old, and that was his deeply held religious conviction. That is the type of character that the code and the attitude of the Secretary of State for Employment will bring forward.

I was involved in the trade union movement as a shop steward. I have been involved as a full-time officer, and I am still involved. Nothing beats good industrial relations on the shop floor between people who know their industry and know at first hand what they are talking about. We must ensure that industrial relations come not from the House of Commons but from the shop floor, from the people involved in the industry. I keep hearing mention of the NGA and the print unions. I have never been involved in the print unions so I do not know a great deal about them, but I do know that, even if a workshop abolishes its closed shop, the print workers in that shop will still keep their membership because they will need it to ensure that they can find employment with another employer. That is one example of where the Secretary of State for Employment will not be able to do what he wants, which is to destroy the trade union movement. Every time he comes up with a measure to try to destroy the trade union movement, the working people of this country will become stronger.

11.44 pm

Mr. Tebbit

I shall not reply to the abuse from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I think that he will regret his speech when he reads it in the morning.

My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) raised points concerning the relationship between the law and the code. It is clear; indeed, some writers have commented on how clear it is. Section B of the code refers to the law and sections C, D, and E are practical guidance. The Employment Act 1980 gives individuals a general right not to be unreasonably expelled or excluded from union membership but lays down that it is for industrial tribunals to determine what is unreasonable in each particular case, taking into account equity and the merits of the case. The Act was framed in that way because it would have been impossible to provide in legislation for each and every circumstance where a union's activity was to be regarded as unreasonable, and to have set out in law only some such circumstances would have invited tribunals to find the union's action in all other cases reasonable—[Interruption.] I am sorry that my accent upsets some Labour Members

Mr. Foulkes

It is not only your accent; it is everything about you.

Mr. Tebbit

I left school when I was 16 and I did not have a university education.

Mr. Foulkes

Every inch of your being upsets us.

Mr. Tebbit

I left school when I was 16, and I would not deride the accent of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).

Mr. Foulkes

You are a horrible little man.

Mr. Tebbit

The problem is avoided by spelling out specific guidance in a code, guidance which a tribunal must take into account whenever it may find it relevant.

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 168.

Division No. 113]	[11.45 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Ancram, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Arnold, Tom
Alton, David	Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)	Gower, Sir Raymond
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Grant, Sir Anthony
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)	Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Baker, Kenneth(St,M'bone)	Greenway, Harry
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Grieve, Percy
Bendall, Vivian	Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Grist, Ian
Best, Keith	Grylls, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy	Gummer, John Selwyn
Blaker, Peter	Hamilton, Hon A.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bowden, Andrew	Hannam,John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Haselhurst, Alan
Braine, Sir Bernard	Hastings, Stephen
Bright, Graham	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Brinton, Tim	Hawkins, Sir Paul
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon	Hawksley, Warren
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hayhoe, Barney
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Heddle, John
Browne, John (Winchester)	Henderson, Barry
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Buck, Antony	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Budgen, Nick	Hooson, Tom
Bulmer, Esmond	Horam, John
Butler, Hon Adam	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)	Howells, Geraint
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Hughes, Simon (Bermondsey)
Chapman, Sydney	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Churchill, W. S.	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Clegg, Sir Walter	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Colvin, Michael	Jessel, Toby
Cope, John	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Cranborne, Viscount	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Crouch, David	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey	Kimball, Sir Marcus
Dorrell, Stephen	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Knight, Mrs Jill
Dover, Denshore	Knox, David
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Lamont, Norman
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Lang, Ian
Durant, Tony	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Dykes, Hugh	Latham, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lawrence, Ivan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Eggar, Tim	Lee, John
Emery, Sir Peter	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Eyre, Reginald	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Loveridge, John
Farr, John	Luce, Richard
Fell, Sir Anthony	Lyell, Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	McCrindle, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Macfarlane, Neil
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	MacGregor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Forman, Nigel	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Fox, Marcus	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh	McNally, Thomas
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Madel, David
Freud, Clement	Major, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Marland, Paul
Gardner, Sir Edward	Marlow, Antony
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mates, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Goodlad, Alastair	Mawby, Ray
Gorst, John	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Gow, Ian	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Patrick	Silvester, Fred
Mellor, David	Sims, Roger
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Skeet, T. H. H.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)	Speller, Tony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Moate, Roger	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Monro, Sir Hector	Sproat, Iain
Moore, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Morgan, Geraint	Stanley, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)	Steen, Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Stevens, Martin
Neale, Gerrard	Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Nelson, Anthony	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Neubert, Michael	Stradling Thomas, J.
Newton, Tony	Tapsell, Peter
Onslow, Cranley	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Osborn, John	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Page, Richard (SW Herts)	Thompson, Donald
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil	Thome, Neil (Ilford South)
Parris, Matthew	Thornton, Malcolm
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Pattie, Geoffrey	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Pawsey, James	Trippier, David
Penhaligon, David	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Percival, Sir Ian	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Pink, R. Bonner	Waddington, David
Pollock, Alexander	Waldegrave, Hon William
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Walker, B. (Perth)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Prior, Rt Hon James	Wall, Sir Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey	Walters, Dennis
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy	Ward, John
Rathbone, Tim	Warren, Kenneth
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)	Watson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wells, Bowen
Renton, Tim	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rhodes James, Robert	Wheeler, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Whitney, Raymond
Ridsdale, Sir Julian	Wickenden, Keith
Roper, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Wilkinson, John
Rossi, Hugh	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Rost, Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)
Royle, Sir Anthony	Winterton, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wolfson, Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Sandelson, Neville	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Scott, Nicholas	Younger, Rt Hon George
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Mr. Carol Mather and
Shepherd, Richard	Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Shersby, Michael
NOES
Abse, Leo	Buchan, Norman
Adams, Allen	Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)
Allaun, Frank	Campbell, Ian
Anderson, Donald	Canavan, Dennis
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cant, R. B.
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Carmichael, Neil
Ashton, Joe	Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)	Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Bagier, Gordon AT.	Coleman, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Conlan, Bernard
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Cowans, Harry
Bidwell, Sydney	Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Crowther, Stan
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Dalyell, Tarn

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Mikardo, Ian
Deakins, Eric	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dewar, Donald	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Dixon, Donald	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Dobson, Frank	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dormand, Jack	O'Brien, Oswald (Darlington)
Dubs, Alfred	O'Halloran, Michael
Dunnett, Jack	O'Neill, Martin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Palmer, Arthur
Eadie, Alex	Parry, Robert
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)	Race, Reg
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)	Radice, Giles
Ennals, Rt Hon David	Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Richardson, Jo
Evans, John (Newton)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Field, Frank	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Flannery, Martin	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Foster, Derek	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Foulkes, George	Robertson, George
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
George, Bruce	Rooker, J. W.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Golding, John	Rowlands, Ted
Graham, Ted	Sever, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hardy, Peter	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)	Short, Mrs Renée
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Silverman, Julius
Haynes, Frank	Skinner, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)	Soley, Clive
Home Robertson, John	Spearing, Nigel
Homewood, William	Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)
Hooley, Frank	Spriggs, Leslie
Howell, Rt Hon D.	Stallard, A. W.
Hoyle, Douglas	Stoddart, David
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Straw, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Janner, Hon Greville	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
John, Brynmor	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Kerr, Russell	Warded, Gareth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Watkins, David
Lambie, David	Welsh, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted	White, Frank R.
Leighton, Ronald	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Lestor, Miss Joan	Whitehead, Phillip
Litherland, Robert	Whitlock, William
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Wigley, Dafydd
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
McCartney, Hugh	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
McElhone, Mrs Helen	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
McKelvey, William	Winnick, David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Woolmer, Kenneth
McNamara, Kevin	Wright, Sheila
McTaggart, Robert	Young, David (Bolton E)
McWilliam, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Tellers for the Noes:
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Mr. George Morton and
Martin, (G'gow S'burn)	Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Code of Practice on Closed Shop Agreements and Arrangements, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.