§ Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 7, leave out "reference to" and insert "the support of".
§ Mr. Fatchett
This group of amendments, like those that we debated earlier, is further evidence of the confusion in the Government's legislation. In the eight months since Second Reading they have fundamentally changed the principles and the detail of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State—sadly, he is no longer with us—said that part II concerned strike ballots and effectively allowed trade unions the choice of balloting the members before calling them out and keeping the immunity allowed by the law or calling a strike without a ballot and forfeiting the immunity. He said that the choice was clear. If there was a ballot, regardless of the result, the union enjoyed the immunities. If there was no ballot, the union lost the privilege of the immunities. The Lords amendments which the Government now support fundamentally change that principle. There is now the third requirement that a majority must be obtained of those voting in the ballot, so the Government have substantially shifted their position.
One might suppose, charitably, that the change has been made because the Government listened to the arguments in Committee, but all the evidence points in the opposite direction. As the Secretary of State attended fewer than 20 per cent. of the Committee sittings, he probably never heard the arguments anyway. Indeed, he has disappeared again now that we have reached the important subject of strike ballots. He has presumably not disappeared at this time of night to carry out functions such as settling industrial disputes with which the Department is normally associated, but he has left other Ministers in the team to carry important matters of principle for the Government.
Replacing the absentee Secretary of State we have a moonlighting Minister of State—an individual capable of carrying out not just one but two jobs, including that of chairman of the Conservative party. The reason for the changes made in the Lords amendments may indeed be not the logic of the argument advanced to justify them but the Minister's recognition of the pressure from the militant wing of his own party. His hold on the chairmanship is extremely tenuous and it cannot make him feel very secure to see the newspapers regularly tipping others to take over the job. I believe that in supporting the amendments he is playing for the militant vote within the Conservative party which we saw in raw operation earlier.
The vote was not based on reason or any understanding of industrial relations—it was a raw, class vote. It was a body of opinion within the Conservative party — I suspect that the Minister of State, in his more rational moments, is ashamed of it—that was clearly anti-trade 932 union and anti working people. That body of opinion, stimulated by certain Conservative Members, and represented outside the House by the Institute of Directors, is the real policymaker in the Conservative party.
The reality of the Department of Employment is that it is no longer making industrial relations policy; it has transferred those functions to its own extremist Back Benchers and, outside the House, to the Institute of Directors. Those are the people who are putting forward the amendments, and the Government are going along with it in an obedient Pavlovian way—they are not thinking about industrial relations; they are simply responding to the diktat of the extremists outside the House. Those are the reasons for this batch of amendments. The chairman of the Conservative party is giving way to the pressure in his own organisation.
The official reason for the amendments is that they are a reaction to the coal strike—lessons have been learnt from experience. Lord Gowrie, in the other place, put that forward as the official reason for the amendments. On many occasions tonight there has been a great deal of heat from Conservative Members about industrial disputes, but not on one occasion did they come forward with a suggestion of how to resolve certain industrial disputes. The figures for industrial disputes show that in the first six months of 1984, the number of working days lost went up by nearly 300 per cent. That shows that this Department of Employment, under these Ministers, gives a low priority to settling industrial disputes. The Government are keen to exacerbate and create industrial disputes. Such an attitude has been shown by Conservative Members this evening.
§ Mr. Fatchett
The hon. Gentleman says that the difference is Scargill. Is that a sensible way to make legislation? Do we now introduce legislation for each and every full-time union official? Will there be legislation to deal with Moss Evans? Will there be legislation to deal with Terry Duffy in the AUEW if there is legislation to deal with Arthur Scargill? In the amendments, there is not a clause that says that they are the Arthur Scargill amendments, but we take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that that is so. They are to deal with the miners' dispute and the problems that beset the Government as a result.
I believe that the heat that has been generated on the Conservative Benches and the reaction every time Arthur Scargill's name is mentioned simply show that the Government believe that the more they shout, the more they will appear to be in control. The reality of the miners' dispute is that the Government have lost control; they are on the way to defeat. They know it, and that is why they want to make a great deal of noise.
Let us look at the arguments. The Government say that if a union does not hold a strike ballot or does not carry that ballot with a majority, it will lose immunities. Those immunities exist partly under the Trade Disputes Act 1906. They have been severely restricted by the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982. Employers have the power to use the jurisdiction of the courts to show the limitations that have been placed on the immunities of trade unions. The amendment can work only if employers and Government are prepared to take trade unions to court under the 1980 and 1982 legislation.
§ Mr. Hanley
Will the hon. Gentleman explain how many working days were lost in the first six months of this year following strike ballots, and how many were lost when there were no strike ballots?
§ Mr. Fatchett
If, in view of his other responsibilities, the Minister has time, I am sure that he will be delighted to answer that question. The hon. Gentleman will want to know how these amendments will reduce the number of days that are lost through industrial action. It is possible under the 1980 and 1982 Acts to take trade unions to court, as their immunities have been restricted severely. Why have the courts not been used in the miners' dispute? There can be only two logical answers. Perhaps the Government have interfered and told employers and the nationalised industries informally, "Do not use the industrial relations legislation because we have created a bomb that will blow up if anyone dares use it." The Bill is therefore pinned on legislation that the Government dare not use. We know that. They have intervened day after day in the coal dispute. The other conclusion, which is more flattering to the Minister as he might not want to claim that he has interfered in his capacity as chairman of the Conservative party, is that employers have decided not to use the legislation.
Employers might be more sensible than we sometimes give them credit for. They might realise that the legislation that the Government have put through might not help but rather will make industrial relations more difficult to manage. Either conclusion shows that, in 1980 and 1982, the Government introduced legislation that was of little use in industrial relations except to poison and sour the atmosphere in workplaces throughout the country. Conservative Members know that. They want a Scargill clause so that they can go back to their Conservative associations and say, "We have put into this Bill an amendment that will stop what is happening in the coal dispute."
I put it to the Minister, what will these amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not listening."] He does not need to listen because he always gives the same reply. He might do us the courtesy of listening as he might want to tell us what in these amendments will help us to resolve the dispute in the coal industry. He has let the cat out of the bag, as he has said nothing in that regard. These amendments will do nothing to help resolve the coal dispute. Would it not be more sensible if, instead of wasting the Government's and the House's time, the Minister and his Department tried to resolve industrial disputes? That is the Department's traditional role. When the chairman of the Conservative party is a Minister and the Conservative party thinks that it will get political advantage from industrial unrest, there is no incentive for the Department of Employment to resolve industrial disputes. The Department should be negotiating a settlement, but we have a Government who are introducing futile and pointless amendments that will exacerbate the problem as they provide the raw meat for Conservative Members to say that they have their Scargill clause.
We shall oppose these amendments for several reasons. We believe that, in principle, the introduction of compulsory strike ballots is against the concept of voluntarism which has traditionally existed in British 934 industrial relations. Again, the Government are telling the unions what they have to do, rather than allowing the unions and their members to decide for themselves.
Time and again, we have heard from Conservative Members and from Ministers that the Bill is about giving the unions back to their members. Part II and the amendments take the unions away from the members and impose on them a form of operation which the Government insist on. We oppose the compulsion; we believe in voluntarism.
Our main reason for opposing the amendments is that they represent an ill-conceived reaction to the Government's forthcoming defeat in the coal strike. They are a Pavlovian reaction, built on class hatred rather than an understanding of industrial relations. The amendments are devoid of logical thought and analysis, but they are replete with class hatred and hostility.
§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)
This is the part of the Bill which worries me most. I fear that we shall not have strike ballots—which I favour—but ballots on whether members support the union in going back for another round of negotiations with the management. There is a reference to a 28-day gap between the holding of a ballot and the start of a strike.
The amendments merely make sense of the clause. One says that there must be a majority in favour of a strike. I confess that I assumed that that was what the original drafting meant. I applaud whoever spotted the defect in the other place. I did not hear it mentioned in Committee here.
§ Mr. Penhaligon
I was there—too often.
The other amendments merely make the position clearer and I see no reason why we should oppose that.
However, I am not convinced that the arguments that I made in Committee are invalid. Still I believe that the Government are making a mistake and are producing a scenario which will increase the likelihood of strikes. as opposed to reducing them which I suspect is their desire. If the Opposition had argued that case, instead of continually pointing out that the Minister of State is the chairman of the Conservative party—which most of us know by now—we might have made more progress on the points that deserve attention.
The Government have got it wrong, but at least the amendments ensure that the clause makes sense, and there is no reason to oppose them.
§ Mr. Gummer
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchelt) on his speech from the Opposition Front Bench and thank him for his solicitous approach to my chairmanship of the Conservative party. I hope that he will have many more years in which to continue being so solicitous.
I also thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for giving us a rare moment of unanimity when he mentioned that he had attended the Committee too often. However, he missed our argument on the point that he raised. We discussed whether we should write into the Bill a requirement for a majority in a ballot.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned the reason why the change has been made, but he passed over it quickly. We felt that there was no need to provide that there had to be a majority. We felt—I believe that I said it—that no trade union leader who failed to get a 935 majority would call people out on strike. Since then too many trade union leaders have done precisely that. A whole series of loyalist miners who support the NUM have continued their ban on overtime for which they voted, but have refused to go on strike because they voted against it. They will win the miners' strike. They are the real members of the NUM, not those who have been taken out on strike without the ballot which the NUM constitution requires. I am talking about Nottinghamshire, where the vote was 20,188 to 7,285 against a strike. The union then called the men out and they refused to strike.
I have some more embarrassing figures for the Opposition. In the midlands the figure was 7,556 to 2,804. Again the union called the men out on strike. In south Derbyshire, 2,303 miners did not want to strike and 453 did want to strike. Every man was called out on strike by the union which held the ballot. In Cumberland and north Wales the figures were 383 to 109 and 595 to 276. In each case a ballot was held and the union, having lost the ballot, called the men out on strike and have since used intimidation and violence to try to overturn the decision of the ballot. That is what has changed.
I say to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that his party grew on the demand for democracy, that ordinary people should have a fair and decent way of life and be able to vote. He should be supporting the Nottinghamshire miners, the Derbyshire miners, the Staffordshire miners, the Cumberland miners and the miners of north Wales instead of the only miners who did not have a ballot and who were called out on strike without that ballot.
§ Mr. Fatchett
It is strange that we should have to listen to lessons in democracy by the Conservative party, given its record of resisting every extension of the franchise and democratic rights. Conservative Members know that and will continue to resist the demands of working people. The Minister loves to quote figures. How will the amendments resolve the strike? That is the crucial question. He can play with all his figures for the benefit of his Back Benchers. I understand his reason, but what will he do about resolving the strike and how will the amendments contribute to that?
§ Mr. Gummer
That intervention neither apologises for the gross misuse of democratic rights demonstrated by the figures that I used nor condemns the intimidation and violence against those who have honourably balloted. It did not admit that if this legislation had been in place before ordinary men and women would have had a proper way of ensuring that they had that ballot, because the union would not have put itself at risk by not having the ballot.
I hope that the House will recognise, and make sure that others recognise, that once again the Labour party has failed to condemn the violence and support the ballot, and it has failed to condemn the intimidation and support the votes. Once again, it has backed the miners who have not voted against the miners who have voted. That is the truth of its opposition to the amendments. In those circumstances, in a democratically elected assembly such as this House, it is sad that the hon. Member for Leeds, 936 Central should choose the first occasion on which he appeared on the Front Bench not to condemn violence and support the ballot.
This matter does not only concern the NUM. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman about the effects of the past three weeks on the port of Felixstowe, in my constituency. There dockers were brought out on strike without a ballot. However, they were asked to vote to go back after the strike.
§ Mr. Gummer
As the hon. Gentleman said that it is not true, I shall report to him the words of the convener at the meeting. I have his words because most of the people at the meeting were the dockers at Felixstowe who vote for me. In the last general election campaign the Labour candidate was not asked to speak to the dockers because they said that the Labour party policy on docks was not one that they could support in any circumstances. I was invited to talk to the dockers and they pointed out the one member of the Labour party that they could find. The dockers in Felixstowe were told what the union had decided and that they could not vote on it because it was a matter of accepting what the union had decided. That was a decision on a strike that was connected with the dock labour scheme, which does not apply to the port of Felixstowe. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that the dockers should have had a vote.
There was then the vote before the strike at Dover. In that case, the vote was so disputed that everybody but the shop stewards thought that the result was two to one against the strike, and it was declared a vote for the strike.
§ Mr. Gummer
I shall not give way.
Only recently, there was a decision by the TGWU to expel a group of 21 drivers in Wales—who were not asked whether they wanted to go on strike, but were told to do so—because the union decided that they should have accepted the demand that they strike rather than cross a picket line. Despite the hilarity of Labour Members, they cannot overcome the serious change that has taken place since we debated this matter in Committee. Despite the fact that in Committee we believed that if one had a vote the trade union leaders would accept that if they could not get a majority for a strike they would not call a strike, there are now a whole series of cases in which, when such leaders fail to get a majority, they have brought people out on strike and then used violence and intimidation to keep them out on strike. Labour Members show themselves to be dishonourable in refusing to condemn intimidation and support the ballot.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 150.939
|Division No. 429]||[11.54 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Aspinwall, Jack|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.|
|Alexander, Richard||Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)|
|Amess, David||Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)|
|Ancram, Michael||Baldry, Anthony|
|Arnold, Tom||Banks, Robert (Harrogate)|
|Ashby, David||Batiste, Spencer|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Beith, A. J.|
|Bendall, Vivian||Gorst, John|
|Benyon, William||Gow, Ian|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Best, Keith||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Greenway, Harry|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Gregory, Conal|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Body, Richard||Ground, Patrick|
|Bottomley, Peter||Grylls, Michael|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Hancock, Mr. Michael|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Bright, Graham||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Brinton, Tim||Harris, David|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Harvey, Robert|
|Browne, John||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hawkins, C. (High Peak)|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Hayes, J.|
|Budgen, Nick||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Burt, Alistair||Heddle, John|
|Butcher, John||Henderson, Barry|
|Butterfill, John||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Hickmet, Richard|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hicks, Robert|
|Carttiss, Michael||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Cash, William||Hill, James|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hind, Kenneth|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hirst, Michael|
|Chope, Christopher||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Holt, Richard|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hordern, Peter|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Howard, Michael|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Colvin, Michael||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Conway, Derek||Hubbard-Miles, Peter|
|Coombs, Simon||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Cope, John||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Corrie, John||Hunter, Andrew|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Crouch, David||Jackson, Robert|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Jessel, Toby|
|Dicks, Terry||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Dover, Den||Johnston, Russell|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Durant, Tony||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Eggar, Tim||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Kennedy, Charles|
|Evennett, David||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Key, Robert|
|Fallon, Michael||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Farr, Sir John||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Favell, Anthony||Knight, Gregory (Derby N)|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Knowles, Michael|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Knox, David|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lamont, Norman|
|Forman, Nigel||Lang, Ian|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Latham, Michael|
|Forth, Eric||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Fox, Marcus||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Franks, Cecil||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Freeman, Roger||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Fry, Peter||Lester, Jim|
|Gale, Roger||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Lightbown, David|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Lilley, Peter|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Lord, Michael|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Lyell, Nicholas|
|McCrindle, Robert||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Ryder, Richard|
|MacGregor, John||Sackville, Hon Thomas|
|MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Maclean, David John||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Madel, David||Shelton, Wiiliam (Streatham)|
|Major, John||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Malone, Gerald||Shersby, Michael|
|Maples, John||Silvester, Fred|
|Marland, Paul||Sims, Roger|
|Marlow, Antony||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Mates, Michael||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Speed, Keith|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Speller, Tony|
|Merchant, Piers||Spencer, Derek|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Squire, Robin|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Steen, Anthony|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Stern, Michael|
|Moate, Roger||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Moore, John||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Sumberg, David|
|Mudd, David||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Neale, Gerrard||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Needham, Richard||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Nelson, Anthony||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Neubert, Michael||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Newton, Tony||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Norris, Steven||Thurnham, Peter|
|Onslow, Cranley||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Tracey, Richard|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Trippier, David|
|Osborn, Sir John||Trotter, Neville|
|Ottaway, Richard||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Page, Sir John (Harrow W)||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Viggers, Peter|
|Parris, Matthew||Waddington, David|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Pawsey, James||Walden, George|
|Penhaligon, David||Wallace, James|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Waller, Gary|
|Pollock, Alexander||Ward, John|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Powley, John||Warren, Kenneth|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Watson, John|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Watts, John|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Raffan, Keith||Wheeler, John|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Whitfield, John|
|Rathbone, Tim||Whitney, Raymond|
|Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Renton, Tim||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Wood, Timothy|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Woodcock, Michael|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Yeo, Tim|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rost, Peter||Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.|
|Abse, Leo||Bagier, Gordon A. T.|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Banks, Tony (Newham NW)|
|Barnett, Guy||John, Brynmor|
|Barron, Kevin||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Bell, Stuart||Lambie, David|
|Benn, Tony||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Lester, Jim|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Litherland, Robert|
|Blair, Anthony||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Boyes, Roland||Loyden, Edward|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||McCartney, Hugh|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||McGuire, Michael|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Caborn, Richard||McKelvey, William|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||McNamara, Kevin|
|Canavan, Dennis||McTaggart, Robert|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||McWilliam, John|
|Clarke, Thomas||Madden, Max|
|Clay, Robert||Marek, Dr John|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Cohen, Harry||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Coleman, Donald||Michie, William|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Conlan, Bernard||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Cowans, Harry||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Nellist, David|
|Craigen, J. M.||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Crowther, Stan||O'Brien, William|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Dalyell, Tam||Park, George|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Parry, Robert|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Patchett, Terry|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Deakins, Eric||Pendry, Tom|
|Dewar, Donald||Pike, Peter|
|Dixon, Donald||Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)|
|Dobson, Frank||Prescott, John|
|Dormand, Jack||Redmond, M.|
|Dubs, Alfred||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Eadie, Alex||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Eastham, Ken||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Rogers, Allan|
|Ewing, Harry||Rooker, J. W.|
|Fatchett, Derek||Rowlands, Ted|
|Faulds, Andrew||Sheerman, Barry|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Fisher, Mark||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Flannery, Martin||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Skinner, Dennis|
|Foster, Derek||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Foulkes, George||Snape, Peter|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Soley, Clive|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Spearing, Nigel|
|Garrett, W. E.||Straw, Jack|
|George, Bruce||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Golding, John||Tinn, James|
|Gould, Bryan||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Wareing, Robert|
|Hardy, Peter||Welsh, Michael|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Winnick, David|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Woodall, Alec|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.|
|Janner, Hon Greville|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lord amendments Nos. 18 to 26 agreed to.