§
Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 38, line 38, leave out
In subsection (8) of section 5 of the Employment Act 1980
and insert
In section 2 of the Employment Act 1980 (secret ballots on employers' premises)—
§
(2) In section 5 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (8)".
§ Mr. NichollsI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. NichollsThe first amendment is a substantive one. It simply ensures that statutes are not inconsistent. Section 2 of the 1980 Act provides that where an independent trades union proposes to hold a relevant ballot and requests an employer to permit his premises to be used for the purposes of giving his workers who are members of the union a convenient opportunity to vote in the ballot, the employer shall, subject to certain conditions, comply with that request so far as is reasonably practicable.
Both union executive election ballots and political fund review ballots qualify as relevant. Employers can therefore be required to make their premises available for voting in such ballots. Clause 13 requires executive election and political fund ballots to be held only by the fully postal method. The substantive amendment accordingly removes a source of potential conflict between the 1980 Act and the Bill by removing any entitlement to use an employer's premises where ballots have to be held by the fully postal method.
The other amendment is entirely consequential and reorders paragraph 3 of schedule 3 so as to make room for the amendment. I commend it to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 agreed to.
§
Lords amendment: No. 42., in page 39, line 25, leave out
section 2(5) of that Act
and insert
section 2 of that Act—
(a) in subsection (5)".
§ Mr. CopeThese amendments are about balloting for union officers and other similar matters when some of the union members are overseas. The unions will be free to choose whether to ballot overseas members, as they do at present. The trade union Act 1944 and the Bill do not provide, however, for safeguards in voting to apply to overseas votes.
When we were dealing with workplace ballots, that was all very well. Now we need to provide for postal ballots. The amendments ensure that where a union enfranchises its overseas members they must use a voting paper and vote by post, and be able to do so without interference and without cost where that is practicable. Of course, they must be able to have their votes counted fairly and accurately.
The clauses concerning independent scrutiny and election addresses which we discussed earlier will apply automatically where overseas members are enfranchised. The amendments do not detract from the union's freedom of choice but simply ensure that, where overseas members can vote, they are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. I commend the amendments to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 48 agreed to.
289§ Lords amendment: No.49, in page 40,line 11, leave out "and".
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 52.
§ Mr. CopeFor reasons at which I can only guess, these amendments were thought by some Opposition Members in the other place to be sinister. In fact, they are boringly technical and simply clarify the original intention of the Government.
The amendments concern the effect of the provisions about national union elections on those who are shortly to retire. The basic principle is that those who hold office as a result of a postal ballot or of a statutory election under the Trade Union Act 1984 can do so without a new election if they are due to retire within five years. Another part of the Bill provides that those who hold office at the time of the commencement of the provisions can continue without a new ballot for two years.
Obviously the decisions about the length and application of the time limits are a matter of judgment, but I do not think that they are unreasonable. However, they were, and to some degree still are, expressed in the Bill by means of amendments to schedule 8 to the 1984 Act. The question hinges on when sections 2 and 3 of that Act apply. The Bill, as it was originally drafted, was undoubtedly difficult to follow and the amendments help to clarify the position. I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. StrangI cannot accept the casual explanation that the Minister has given for the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment No. 52. It makes an important change to the provisions requiring certain trade union officials to stand for election and it is our submission that the amendment has been tabled to require particular trade union leaders to stand for election. I shall seek to expand on that. However, in the 17 years or so during which I have had the privilege to be a Member of the House I have never come across a more petty and vindictive approach to such matters.
Let us go back to the beginning. Our view—we have made it clear consistently throughout the deliberations on the Bill, starting from Second Reading—is that the question of which officers of a trade union, whether the principal executive committee—which is usually elected anyway—the general secretary, the president or whoever, should be elected by a ballot of all members is one that should be for the union members to decide.
The rules of our unions have evolved over many years and they are based on what the members of the various unions believe is the best approach for their circumstances. I defend again the right of any union to appoint a general secretary, to regard a general secretary as primarily a senior administrator and to want a relationship with a general secretary that makes it clear that the authority on the executive lies with the elected lay members of the executive and that the general secretary is there to carry out its decisions. Many unions take the view—I am not saying that one approach is better than another—that that clarity of decision-making and that clarity in the 290 relationship between the senior official and the union is best served by having an appointed general secretary who is answerable to the elected lay members of the executive.
To a certain extent, that was done away with by the 1984 Act when the Government required that all voting members of executives should be directly elected. If the Government were determined to intervene—wholly unreasonably—in these matters and were determined to draw a distinction, that would be the best distinction to make. It is obvious to all trade unions that if members are to have a vote on the executive under the 1984 Act, they have to be elected, and if they do not have a vote they do not have to be elected.
We have only to read the Green Paper, which was the precursor to this Bill, to know that in the Government's view the decision of one trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, to alter its rules to enable the president to give up his vote on the executive and thus avoid election meant that there was some loophole in the provisions. We do not accept that. The NUM was simply coming into line with the laws that the Government had introduced and in no way should that have been seen as the union somehow cocking a snook at the Government.
In response to that, quite unreasonably, the Government brought forward the provisions in this Bill that would require that the president of the NUM and many other unions, and the general secretaries, would have to be elected, regardless of whether they had a vote on the executive. That was a quite monstrous intrusion, we believe, in the affairs of the union, and was wholly unjustified. However, the Government having virtually admitted that this provision had been brought forward as a consequence of the decision of the NUM to create a situation in which the general secretary and the president did not have votes on the executive, we duly deliberated on these matters in Committee and on Report.
The president of the National Union of Mineworkers stood for election during that period. I would say in passing that this was in difficult circumstances, in the aftermath of a very damaging strike for the union. Certainly as portrayed by the mass media in this country, he was seen as something of a villain and, in the course of that campaign, was expected to be the repository of all the blame for what went wrong during the strike. Nevertheless, he won that election decisively.
It seems quite obvious now that the Government saw that the president of the NUM, having been elected in that way under the legislation as it was then drafted, might not he required to stand for election again. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify this because many people have suggested that part of the motivation for the Lords amendment was to ensure that the president of the NUM was required to stand again. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I acknowledge that I do not think that that was the sole purpose of the Lords amendment. What makes it so distasteful, in our view, is that it seems as though the Government looked at the ages of certain general secretaries in the trade union movement and, on the basis of what they saw, decided to amend the retirement provisions. The evidence for that comes from the House of Lords proceedings. I make no apology for referring to this because it is this that leads us to argue that in some sense the Bill is hybrid.
When Lord Wedderburn asked the Minister, Lord Trefgarne:
We may assume that this class"—291 that is, of trade union leaders—has been ascertained by reference to the ages of particular people"—a perfectly straightforward question as to whether they had looked at the ages of these general secretaries and decided that they would enact a particular amendment to ensure that they had to be re-elected before their retirement—Lord Trefgarne said:As I understand it, yes.Lord Murray, the former general secretary of the TUC, then asked the Minister if he would be so good as to publish the list of the people considered and their ages and say how he had taken the decision whether he wanted some to be elected and not necessarily others. And the Minister said:Perhaps I can reflect upon that request. Off the cuff, I cannot think of any reason why we should not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 1988; Vol. 494, c. 613.] Subsequently, the Minister, I presume after having been advised by his civil servants that that was not a point that one should make public in the House of Lords, sought to retract it. The Minister will be aware that there are different categories of trade union leaders. Some are elected by postal or workplace ballots. Much depends on whether one is a voting or non-voting member of the executive, on one's age, when one is due to retire and when the provisions are to come into force. It is perfectly clear that instead of trying to be consistent and requiring a group of people to be accountable to their membership, the Government approached the matter in a selective way. As I said earlier, that demeans the parliamentary process.If a Labour Government introduced legislation affecting the heads of major companies, I could imagine the furore that there would be if the legislation required certain heads of companies, whose views we did not like, to be subject to certain requirements but not others. I hope that no Government would do that because we should not go down that road, but it shows the sort of comparable action that a Labour Government could take.
This is an outrageous intrusion into the affairs of trade unions. We want trade unionists to respect their rule books, which have been evolved by generations of trade unionists. Passing these laws will devalue those rules, and that is something of which the Government should be ashamed.
§ Mr. WinnickI said earlier that some unions—mainly white-collar unions such as mine—have always appointed their general secretary. The lay executive is the governing body in the absence of annual conference. Every four or five years, my union had a rules revision conference so that any branch could put forward suggestions about changes. It was ironic that on any number of occasions it was, for want of a better phrase, the revolutionary Left that went to the rostrum and said that the general secretary should be elected and not appointed. It was left to me, a humble, modest Left-winger in the mainstream of the trade union movement, to argue that to elect a general secretary would give that person far greater authority than otherwise, and that it would be at the expense of the lay executive. I am glad to say that, without too many difficulties, I was able to persuade conference that the office of general secretary should remain an appointed position.
The Right-wing Tory Government, with typical impertinence, are telling the trade union movement how to 292 go about its business. The election of a general secretary has always been part of some unions' rules. White-collar unions such as mine and the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, as it was formerly, have taken a different course. Surely it should be left to trade unionists and the rules revision body to decide whether they want to elect the general secretary or whether he should be appointed.
It is not only the general secretary but any official of a union who regularly attends meetings of the executive council who will be subject to election. There will be much legal ambiguity, to say the least, about who comes within the Act. There will be a few court test cases to decide whether an official should be elected, according to the provisions of the Act, because he may attend the executive council at regular intervals. What a stupid road the Tory Government have gone down.
Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has pointed out, this latest amendment seeks to ensure that one or two people whom tile Government clearly do not like, such as the president of the NUM, will no longer be exempted for reasons of age, and so on—not that he is frightened of elections because, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, he stood again recently and was elected.
If we had a Government who believed in their own internal democracy, we could at least say that they practised what they preached, however much we were against what they were doing. But here is a political party that, until 23 years ago, could not even elect its own leader. It was subject to the magic circle. The late lain Macleod wrote an informative and lengthy article on how the then Mr. Alec Douglas-Home became the Prime Minister. He was not the subject of any election. Even now, the chairman of the Conservative party is not subject to election.
The Tory party conference is more or less run on the same pattern as party congresses in eastern Europe. Here is a political party that does not practise democracy in its own ranks, that has no concern about democracy in the City or in big business—no legislation has come before us to bring any form of elementary democracy into big business or the City—but that has the impertinence to use its majority in the House to pass legislation such as this. This is a vendetta there is no other description for it—against the trade union movement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East pointed out how a Labour Government could reply in kind. I only wish that when the time comes they do so.
§ Mr. SkinnerI have said before in recent weeks that the Government are becoming arrogant and contemptuous of almost everybody in the land. Despite all the sermons that the Prime Minister preaches, we are now seeing that they are prepared to bend the rules and shift the goalposts. They are prepared to do any mortal thing to attack working class people and their representatives or anybody who stands in their way. I can just imagine someone in the Tory party asking, "What is McCluskie's age? Next time we introduce a Bill we shall have to tackle him."
It crosses my mind, Mr. Speaker, that it is just conceivable—I choose my words carefully—that there might be some mole burrowing away saying, "This Speaker has not been exactly kind to us. I wonder whether we can devise a new rule. I wonder whether we can sort him out." Such is the nature of the Tory Government that 293 they will go to any lengths to carry out what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) described as nothing short of a vendetta.
§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)Disgraceful.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This has nothing to do with the Bill.
§ Mr. SkinnerI am not one to defend anybody in the Establishment, but when I smell a rat over matters such as this it is worth exposing. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you were able to refer in your programme to the cavalry—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are debating the Employment Bill and I am not subject to that.
§ Mr. SkinnerI finish on that point, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to draw an analogy between the way in which the Government's collective mind works and anybody who might appear to stand in their way. The Government devise rules to shift them, with the exception of their own people, of course.
In a few days' time, the Government will not deal out the same treatment to the ex-leader of the Social and Democratic party—the leader of the provos. He will not have rules that will allow him to be chained to the fence. They are bringing in some new rules for him—new rules that will be favourable. There are only three Members of Parliament now, but he will finish up with £53,000-worth of Short money. They are not unhappy about that. Neither are the Social and Liberal Democrats, who never stood in the election and yet will get £180,000.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are debating the Lords amendment. That matter has nothing to do with it.
§ Mr. SkinnerPeople outside want to know how the Government are operating and just how far they will go to try to undermine the collective weight of the Labour party by feeding large sums of money to the rag, tag and bobtails who sometimes sit on the Conservative Benches below the Gangway. I shall be referring to that at greater length on another occasion when I oppose the handing out of the money.
We are witnessing the same vindictiveness as the Government showed when they decided to get rid of the GLC. They said, "What's happening over there across the river? They are causing us some trouble. They want to bring down fares for Londoners. We shall put a stop to that by abolishing the council." They have introduced the same sort of proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "ILEA."] Yes, the same was true of ILEA. [HON. MEMBERS: "The BBC."] In their dealings with the BBC and all the rest of it the Government have shown arrogance and contempt. There is no end to what they will do to try to stop people—even democratically elected trade union leaders—standing up to them.
Conservative Members stand need talking about elections and democracy—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who has just spoken from outside the Chamber—the putative Prime Minister—stands need talking about democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North talked about the chairman of the Tory party being 294 appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. The chairman of the Bank of England gets the job because he happens to be "one of us". Every quango chief, including William Rees-Mogg, gets the job because he passes the test. In between writing and preaching sermons, the Prime Minister asks the question, "Is he or she one of us?"—and it is usually a he. If the answer is yes, she says, "He's all right then. Give him the job." But when a trade union leader stands for election, the Government say, "How can we stop him holding that position?" It really stinks in the nostrils that the Tory Government can sink so low and be so contemptible as to twist the rules and shift the goalposts to try to hamper working class people and their representatives.
I am pleased that Opposition Members are going to march through the Lobbies tonight to vote against this obnoxious measure which started in another place. What a joke that it should have come from the place where 1,100 people can turn up for work on £100 a day tax free while not one of them has stood for election to get into the building. Now they are bending the rules to try to stop people being properly elected. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is absolutely right. He hit the nail on the head. They burned all that midnight oil looking for ways and means to let us down. We must make sure that when we get back to power we undo all this nonsense.
§ Mr. NichollsPerhaps I may start by returning to Lords amendments Nos. 49 and 52.
I may be able to set the mind of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at rest to some extent. It would be nice if I could do that, bearing in mind the fact that this will probably be our last substantive debate on the Bill. It helps to approach the matter on the basis of those who are presently in scope for the retirement exemptions and those who we want to bring into scope. At the moment voting members of PECs are in scope. If they are there by virtue of a workplace ballot properly conducted under the 1984 Act, they could benefit by the retirement exemption if the provision comes into force within five years of their retiring. That is one category of people, and nothing in the Bill changes that.
The second category contains those who we would bring into scope. I accept that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East profoundly disagrees with my reasons for bringing them in. However, the people who we wish to bring into scope are non-voting members of the PEC. If they are to benefit by the retirement exemption, their previous election must have been conducted by postal ballot. Ultimately it is inconsistent to say, "They should be entitled to benefit by a workplace ballot, just as voting members did."
The distinction—it is an absolutely vital distinction—is that those voting members who were returned under a workplace ballot did so in accordance with the Act. Even that workplace ballot had to be properly conducted. In other words, they conducted themselves in accordance with the legislation. Those people who may have decided, even though the Act did not apply to them, that they would nevertheless hold a workplace ballot are literally outside the law. They are not, as it were, complying with the law, because the law does not apply to them in their situation. It would mean, for instance, that in an election which was conducted in that way—not satisfying a requirement of the Act because they were literally outside
295 it—no member would have a right of complaint to the certification officer if he considered that ballot defective. What it comes to is that, under the 1984 Act, where workplace ballots took place because they were required to take place—
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]
§ Lords amendments again considered.
§ Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. NichollsIt was not just any old workplace ballot that had to be conducted; it had to be conducted in accordance with the Act.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said in effect that there is perhaps an element of retrospection here; here is a provision which is aimed directly at Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers. It is not, because at the moment in no way could Mr. Scargill qualify for the retirement exemption, either as a voting member or, for that matter, a non-voting member, unless he reduces his retirement age. As I understand it, when his present term of office expires, he will still be only 55 years of age. Therefore, the only way that Mr. Scargill could bring himself remotely near this provision is if he decided to reduce his retirement age to bring himself within it. I do not claim to have any understanding of Mr. Scargill's inner mind, but if the hon. Gentleman knows that it was Mr. Scargill's intention throughout to bring himself within the scope of this scheme, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. That would be an entirely different matter. However, as we stand here today, Mr. Scargill does not qualify for the retirement exemption.
It is remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should feel that we conceived this particular provision to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill. If I could pander to the hon. Gentleman's worst suspicions for a moment, why on earth would a Conservative Government want to get rid of Mr. Arthur Scargill? The idea is ludicrous. I dare say that some of my more flippant colleagues would think that it would make far more sense to have an Arthur Scargill preservation society. The idea that Conservative Members have some vested interest in removing Mr. Arthur Scargill from the political scene is a dubious one. It is sad—I say that with all the insincerity that I can muster—that tonight we see a once great political party going into a vote in favour of Mr. Arthur Scargill on a false premise. It will carry as much conviction as a load of turkeys voting for Christmas.
The opposition to these amendments is completely ill founded. Mr. Scargill does not come within them, unless he wants to bring himself within them by particularly devious means. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acquit us in this matter. The idea that Conservative Members have some interest in removing Mr. Scargill from the scene is bizarre in the extreme.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments No. 50 and 51 agreed to.
§
Lords amendment No. 52, in page 40, line 16, at end insert
;and
(d) after the said subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
§ '(5) Where any person holds any such position as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above by virtue of an election held at any time before the coming into force of section 13(2) of the Employment Act 1988 (requirement of postal ballot), section 3 of this Act (non-postal ballots) shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of that paragraph whether any election is an election in relation to which section 2 of this Act has been satisfied, unless the position to which that person was elected in that election was, at the time of the election, either—
- (a) a position as a voting member of the principal executive committee of a trade union; or
- (b) a position by virtue of election to which the person elected would become such a voting member.—
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 185.
299| Division No. 326] | [10.3 pm |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Alexander, Richard | Cope, John |
| Allason, Rupert | Couchman, James |
| Amess, David | Cran, James |
| Amos, Alan | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Arbuthnot, James | Curry, David |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Ashby, David | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Atkins, Robert | Day, Stephen |
| Atkinson, David | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Dicks, Terry |
| Baldry, Tony | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Batiste, Spencer | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Dover, Den |
| Bellingham, Henry | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Evennett, David |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fallon, Michael |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Farr, Sir John |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Favell, Tony |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey |
| Boswell, Tim | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Bottomley, Peter | Forman, Nigel |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Forth, Eric |
| Bowis, John | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Franks, Cecil |
| Brazier, Julian | Freeman, Roger |
| Bright, Graham | French, Douglas |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Fry, Peter |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Gale, Roger |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Gardiner, George |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Burns, Simon | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Butcher, John | Gow, Ian |
| Butler, Chris | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Butterfill, John | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Gregory, Conal |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Grist, Ian |
| Carttiss, Michael | Ground, Patrick |
| Cash, William | Grylls, Michael |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Churchill, Mr | Hannam, John |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'tl Gr') |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Harris, David |
| Colvin, Michael | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Conway, Derek | Hayes, Jerry |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Hayward, Robert | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Riddick, Graham |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hill, James | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Hind, Kenneth | Rost, Peter |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Holt, Richard | Ryder, Richard |
| Howard, Michael | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Howells, Geraint | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Shersby, Michael |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Sims, Roger |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Irvine, Michael | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Jack, Michael | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Jackson, Robert | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Janman, Tim | Speed, Keith |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Speller, Tony |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Squire, Robin |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Key, Robert | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Kilfedder, James | Steen, Anthony |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Stern, Michael |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Latham, Michael | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stokes, John |
| Lilley, Peter | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Summerson, Hugo |
| Maclean, David | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mans, Keith | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Maples, John | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Thorne, Neil |
| Mills, Iain | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Moss, Malcolm | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Mudd, David | Walden, George |
| Neale, Gerrard | Walker, Bill (Tside North) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Wallace, James |
| Neubert, Michael | Ward, John |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Watts, John |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Wheeler, John |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Whitney, Ray |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Page, Richard | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Paice, James | Wilshire, David |
| Patten, Chris (Bath) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Pawsey, James | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wolfson, Mark |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Wood, Timothy |
| Portillo, Michael | Woodcock, Mike |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Price, Sir David | |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Rathbone, Tim | Mr. Tony Durant and |
| Redwood, John | Mr. David Lightbown. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Battle, John |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Beckett, Margaret |
| Allen, Graham | Beith, A. J. |
| Anderson, Donald | Bell, Stuart |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Ashton, Joe | Bidwell, Sydney |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Blair, Tony |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Blunkett, David |
| Barron, Kevin | Boateng, Paul |
| Bradley, Keith | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Lambie, David |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Lamond, James |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Leighton, Ron |
| Buchan, Norman | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Buckley, George J. | Lewis, Terry |
| Caborn, Richard | Litherland, Robert |
| Callaghan, Jim | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | McAllion, John |
| Canavan, Dennis | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | McCartney, Ian |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Macdonald, Calum A. |
| Clay, Bob | McFall, John |
| Clelland, David | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Cohen, Harry | McLeish, Henry |
| Coleman, Donald | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cousins, Jim | McTaggart, Bob |
| Cox, Tom | McWilliam, John |
| Cryer, Bob | Madden, Max |
| Cummings, John | Marek, Dr John |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Darling, Alistair | Martlew, Eric |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Maxton, John |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Meale, Alan |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Michael, Alun |
| Dewar, Donald | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Dixon, Don | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Doran, Frank | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Douglas, Dick | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Morley, Elliott |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Eadie, Alexander | Mullin, Chris |
| Eastham, Ken | Murphy, Paul |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Nellist, Dave |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) | O'Brien, William |
| Fisher, Mark | O'Neill, Martin |
| Flannery, Martin | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Flynn, Paul | Patchett, Terry |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Pike, Peter L. |
| Foster, Derek | Prescott, John |
| Foulkes, George | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Fraser, John | Radice, Giles |
| Galbraith, Sam | Redmond, Martin |
| Galloway, George | Reid, Dr John |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Richardson, Jo |
| George, Bruce | Robertson, George |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Rogers, Allan |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Rooker, Jeff |
| Gordon, Mildred | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Gould, Bryan | Rowlands, Ted |
| Graham, Thomas | Ruddock, Joan |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Salmond, Alex |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Short, Clare |
| Grocott, Bruce | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hardy, Peter | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Haynes, Frank | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| Henderson, Doug | Snape, Peter |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Soley, Clive |
| Holland, Stuart | Spearing, Nigel |
| Home Robertson, John | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Hood, Jimmy | Stott, Roger |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Strang, Gavin |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Turner, Dennis |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Wall, Pat |
| Illsley, Eric | Walley, Joan |
| Ingram, Adam | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Janner, Greville | Wareing, Robert N. |
| John, Brynmor | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) | |
| Wilson, Brian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Winnick, David | Mr. Frank Cook and |
| Worthington, Tony | Mr. Ray Powell. |
| Young, David (Bolton SE) |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 60 agreed to.
§ Lords admentment: No. 61, in page 42, line 27, at end insert
-
c299
- The Agricultural Training Board Act /982 (c. 9) 42 words c299
- The Industrial Training Act 1982 (c. 10) 150 words