§
To move the following Clause:—
'.—(1) In section 11 of the Trade Union Act 1984 (requirements for ballots on industrial action), after subsection (4) insert—
(4A) The voting paper must specify who, in the event of a vote in favour of industrial action, is authorised for the purposes of section (Calling of industrial action with support of ballot) of the Employment Act 1990 to call upon members to take part or continue to take part in the industrial action. The person or description of persons so specified need not be authorised under the rules of the union but must be within section 15(3) of the Employment Act 1982.".
(2) Industrial action shall not be regarded for the purposes of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 1984 or section 1 of the Employment Act 1988 as having the support of a ballot unless it is called by a specified person and the following conditions are satisfied.
(3) The conditions are that—
(4) For the purposes of this section a call shall be taken to have been made by a trade union if it was authorised or endorsed by the union; and the provisions of subsections (3) to (7) of section 15 of the Employment Act 1982 apply for the purpose of determining whether a call, or industrial action, is to be taken to have been so authorised or endorsed.
(5) In this section—
date of the ballot" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Trade Union Act 1984;
specified person" means a person specified or of a description specified in the voting paper for the ballot in accordance with section 11(4A) of the Trade Union Act 1984; and
trade union" has the meaning given by section 28 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.'—[Mr. Howard.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
5.16 pm§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a), subsection (2), leave out from `person' to the end of subsection (4).
Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
§ Mr. HowardThese amendments relate to the ballots that must take place before industrial action can attract immunity from the normal legal consequences which would follow from such action.
One of the most important reforms of trade union law introduced by this Government has been the requirement for unions to ballot their members and obtain a majority 1042 vote for action in a secret ballot if they are to have protection against legal proceedings for organising a strike.
It is thanks to that legislation that we have seen the end of the appalling practice of union leaders calling their members out on strike without giving them any opportunity to express their views, or after sham democratic procedures, such as a show of hands in a car park—with all the intimidation and irregularity which often accompanied such performances.
I must remind the House that every shadow employment spokesman in the past 11 years has led his colleagues through the Lobbies to vote against each and every piece of trade union reform legislation introduced by this Government. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), now the personification of Labour's new moderate media image, was no exception. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Gentleman led the bitter opposition of the Labour party to the very legal provisions concerning ballots which the Labour party is now apparently claiming to accept, and which are directly relevant to the provisions before the House.
Our legislation has worked because it contains the necessary elements to make it work. For example, if there is no proper ballot, an affected employer or union member denied the vote can get an effective remedy from the courts. More important, it is clear that the ballot must take place before the union calls for industrial action.
New clause 10 is at the heart of this group of amendments. Therefore, it will be helpful to the House if I describe its provisions in some detail. The amendment adds a new subsection to section 11 of the 1984 Act. Section 11 sets out requirements that must be satisfied if a ballot is to give a union protection against actions in tort by an employer or customer or supplier of an employer who may be damaged by the union's inducement of members to break or interfere with the performance of contracts, or proceedings by a member of the union under section 1 of the 1988 Act.
New subsection (4A) requires the voting paper in a ballot to specify who is authorised to call on members to take part in or continue with the industrial action to which the ballot relates. The person or description of persons need not be authorised under the union's own rules, but must be among those whose act of calling for industrial action would be an act of the union for the purposes of section 15 of the 1982 Act. The amendments also have the effect, by virtue of subsection (2), that industrial action is not taken with
the support of a ballotfor the purposes of section 10 of the 1984 Act and section 1 of the 1988 Act unless it is called by a person specified on the voting paper. Further conditions are contained in subsection (3).In summary, the provisions mean that if a ballot is to give a union protection against legal proceedings for organising industrial action, the voting papers in a proper ballot must specify the person or persons authorised by the union to call the action to which the ballot relates. If there is a call to take action by any official who is not specified on the voting paper, the union will have no protection. In practice this means, for example, that if the union does not repudiate effectively what the unspecified official has done, it will be liable to legal proceedings by employers and-or members.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Is the Secretary of State saying that specified persons must be the president, every member of the executive and every shop steward employed in the company in which there is a ballot? What does he mean by a specified person?
§ Mr. HowardIt is for the trade union to decide whom it wishes to specify on the ballot paper. We do not intend to limit the power of the trade union to specify an appropriate person. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with that answer and that he will congratulate the Government on the openness of this part of the provisions.
Why have we come forward with these provisions? First, we believe that it is right that union members voting in an industrial action ballot should know whom their union intends to have the authority to call for the action to which the ballot relates. Secondly, where a ballot produces a majority in favour of action, union members should know whether an official's call to take that action following the ballot has the backing of their union. Thirdly, it would clearly be contrary to one of the main purposes of the Bill if a union leadership were allowed simply to stand aside if there is a premature call to take action by wholly unauthorised officials following a ballot. The provisions of the amendments mean that if this happens in future—and it happened, for example, only last year when Ford shop stewards did exactly that—the union will have to repudiate the call effectively or accept liability to court action by an employer or member.
In summary, the new clause enhances democratic practice, and is a logical extension of the law in view of the provisions of the Bill which will, very properly, make unions responsible for what their officials, including shop stewards, do.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)The Secretary of State says that it is up to the trade union to specify the appropriate people. Will he ensure that the people who are specified and whose names appear on the ballot paper are given immunity from subsequent victimisation by the employers?
§ Mr. HowardI do not see how that matter arises. Those people are likely to be officers of the trade union concerned. If the union thinks it appropriate, they can be shop stewards, but that is a matter entirely for the union, which can nominate whomever it thinks appropriate for these purposes.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)Perhaps the Minister will recall the family that used to be in a radio programme, one of the parents in which used to say, "Find out what. Johnny is doing and stop him." That is basically the way in which the Government operate in these matters. Workers have very few rights, but when industrial action occurs from time to time the Government bring in legislation to stop it. The Minister gave an example of what happened at Ford. Would he like to explain in more detail what happened and what he is trying to stop?
§ Mr. HowardI thought that I had explained that. All we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody should know in advance who is entitled to call industrial action after a ballot has taken place. At Ford, the official union leadership did not recommend that action should be taken following the ballot. Shop stewards recommended action and claimed the protection of the ballot, although it was almost certainly within everyone's contemplation that it 1044 was the union leadership that had called the ballot and that it should be responsible for calling action pursuant to that ballot. We are not suggesting that in no circumstances should shop stewards be able to call industrial action and claim the protection of the ballot. We suggest that if they are to have that protection they should be specified on the ballot paper so that everyone knows the exact position and there is no doubt or misunderstanding.
§ Mr. Robert HughesDoes not the Secretary of State see a possible difficulty? If the union puts on the ballot paper every member of its executive and every shop steward in the company, what happens if there is a division of opinion, as often occurs between the executive and the shop stewards? The shop stewards may take one view and the union may take another. How will that help industrial relations?
§ Mr. HowardNo doubt the union will wish to reflect on that matter when deciding who to name on the ballot paper. As I have said, that is entirely a matter fix the union. If it wishes to confine decisions to its executive it will name on the ballot paper only members of its executive. If it wishes to extend to shop stewards the power to take this decision it will name them on the ballot paper.
We believe that union members should have a vote in a properly conducted secret ballot, and that such a ballot must produce a majority in favour of taking action before their union calls on them to take any industrial action. The amendments will help to ensure that future union ballots about official action give voters the information to which they are entitled and that union leaders will not be able to evade their proper responsibility if industrial action is called by an unauthorised official following such a ballot.
These are sensible measures which will be welcomed by employers, sensible union members, and the public at large. If some union leaders and the Opposition resist them, as apparently they intend to do, that can only be interpreted as further opposition to the very idea that there should be proper democratic practices in union affairs, and that unions should be properly responsible for what their officials do. I commend the amendments to the House.
§ Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)The new clause is totally unnecessary. It will land trade unions in interminable legal wrangling, and it is a recipe for chaos. It has been introduced without any consultation or discussion, it has not been the subject of any Green Paper or White Paper and it was never mentioned in Committee. It is a piece of political meddling and that is the only reason for its introduction. In its brief the British Institute of Management says:
We remain unconvinced of the beneficial effect of the proposal that Unions become liable for unofficial action undertaken by Union officials…Placing excessive further legislation in the area of industrial relations immediately introduces an element of confrontation between employer and union, de-stabilising the relationship by providing one side with a weapon.Questions have been asked about the names on the ballot paper and whether a person might be liable to victimisation. Clause 6 contains detailed provisions about union endorsement of action and repudiation, and they are far tougher than the normal rules and regulations of companies. Surely, once the ballot is held, it should be up to the union to decide who it wants to call the action.1045 Let us suppose that the union wishes to change a person on the ballot paper. Does that invalidate the entire exercise? I suppose that it does under the new clause.
5.30 pm
Secondly, I wish to put a point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman which, if he were serious and responsible, he would wish to reflect upon. Let us suppose that a ballot is held and that there is then an unofficial strike call. Currently, because the strike is not called by the union, it is unofficial. Under the proposed new clause, an unofficial strike called by someone not specified on the ballot paper would be unlawful industrial action for which the union would be liable—except in the one set of circumstances mentioned in the Secretary of State's press release of 9 May, which is if the union repudiates the action. Let us suppose that the ballot had a majority in favour of industrial action and shop stewards who were not specified on the ballot paper called out their members, and the union then decided that it agreed with that action. Does that mean that unless the union repudiates the action it is unlawful? If the union wants to endorse the action and make it official, does it have to re-ballot? We need answers to those practical questions
I am astonished that nothing was mentioned in Committee about the new clause. The only example that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave was of an industrial dispute last year, not one during or subsequent to the Committee proceedings. The only reason for the new clause is to place a further disproportionate and unfair burden on trade unions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman already has adequate provisions in the Bill and he should not put on unions further burdens that could land them in legal action for no good reason.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)The new clause is trivial and can lead only to further confusion. It is objectionable. It might, perhaps, add some knowledge to mankind if those who can call industrial action are specified on the ballot paper. However, that can lead only to further opportunities for lawyers to have some fun. The courts have already said that they find this area of industrial relations law complicated enough, without the Secretary of State making it even more complicated.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the legitimate question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The new clause provides for the specifying of not only a single person, but several persons. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that a number of people might be specified, but that after the ballot had been held and there was a majority in favour of industrial action—the very circumstances to which the new clause is directed—there might be a split among those specified persons. After all, it is not at that stage that a union decides whom to specify—they have already been specified. How does that improve the present practice? As the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, nothing has happened since the end of the Committee stage to prompt the new clause. It indulges in a degree of detail that can only benefit lawyers and does little to enhance industrial relations.
Our amendment (a) seeks to tackle the conditions set out in subsections (3)(a) and (4). When read in conjuction with clause 6, it appears that if an official, whether or not 1046 specified by the union, called action on a particular issue, and if the union failed to repudiate that action, there could never be a valid strike ballot on that issue. That could lead to the anomaly of union members declaring in favour of action, but, under the new clause, the will of that majority being defeated and a valid strike ballot not taking place. I am sure that that is not what is intended—or perhaps it is. That is why we tabled our amendment.
If the Government are trying to achieve the aims set out by the Secretary of State, that can be done by subsections (1) and (2), and further conditions are not necessary. The new clause is trivial. On a day when unemployment seems to be rising again, the Secretary of State surely has better matters on which to concentrate his mind.
§ Mr. HowardI am astonished by the reaction to these modest provisions which, far from complicating matters, clarify them. They enable trade unions to make it clear, with considerable precision—as much as they think appropriate, having regard to the conditions—who should be allowed to call industrial action. It is a simple clarifying measure and the Opposition's reaction astonishes me.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Something has just crossed my mind. What would happen if the person nominated on the ballot form passed away? Would there need to be a fresh ballot?
§ Mr. HowardNot at all—the other people specified can call the industrial action——
§ Mr. SkinnerWhat if only one person is specified?
§ Mr. HowardThat might be a good reason for a trade union not doing anything so foolish as to name only one person. It is entirely a matter for the union. If it were foolish enough to specify only one person who then, unfortunately, suffered the fate predicated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it would have to hold another ballot. That is why it would be so silly for a trade union to specify only one person.
I wish to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). These provisions follow so directly and consistently the general structure of the remainder of the Bill that there is hardly any need to consult on them. Anyone with strong views has had the opportunity to express them. They fit within the framework and the structure of the Bill.
If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he requested that a union should be allowed to choose those authorised to take action. It is. That is the purpose of the provisions. As I said, the union would make that decision.
§ Mr. BlairWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point that concerns us most? If a shop steward who is not specified on the ballot paper decides to call out his members—let us suppose that he calls them out at 2.45 pm—and the union is also minded to call out the members—let us say that it intends to do so at 3pm—do the provisions of the new clause mean that the union could not endorse the action of the shop steward at 2.45 pm and that a fresh ballot would have to be held?
§ Mr. HowardIf those who are specified on the ballot wish to exercise their right to call for industrial action, they can do so. Their right to do so is not affected by the fact that someone who was not authorised to do so had already done so.
§ Mr. BlairLet us get this point perfectly clear. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that if there is an official strike call, the union can repudiate that but then endorse it?
§ Mr. HowardThe hon. Gentleman is predicating a sequence of actions on the part of a trade union which is difficult to follow. A few moments ago, he described a situation in which, within minutes of someone who was not on the ballot paper calling industrial action, the union and those who were authorised to take industrial action by being named on the ballot paper chose so to do. Their ability so to do would in no way be affected by the fact that someone else who was not authorised had done so. Therefore, that cannot conceivably be a serious problem.
§ Mr. LeightonSome of us are a bit perplexed about why the Minister has introduced the new clause at this late stage and why he is getting involved in such pernickety detail. Who has asked for this? Was it the trade unions or employers? Did he consult anybody? There was nothing in his Green Paper about it. Has any reputable body asked for this? Why has he become involved in this a year after the event, when it was not considered in Committee?
§ Mr. HowardThe hon. Gentleman will not be entirely astonished to hear that we can look at such matters, decide whether there is a mischief which needs to be remedied and take the appropriate action if we think that it is necessary. It is not necessary in every case to wait for someone to suggest that action should be taken. In the light of the circumstances which arose in the Ford dispute last year, it seemed sensible to clarify the matter, to remove the confusion and to make it entirely clear that a trade union should be in a position to specify in advance just who should he authorised to take the appropriate action following a ballot.
Amendment (a) would remove certain requirements which are part of the present law on balloting for industrial action. Perhaps the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will tell us whether that is his intention. For example, the amendment appears designed to allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot if the official who calls the action is specified on the voting paper.
§ Mr. WallaceI said that the mischief that the amendment was designed to tackle was that subsection (3)(a), read with subsection (4) and clause 6(3), could mean that, if any union official not mentioned on the ballot paper, whether employed by the union or not, called on the members to strike on a particular issue, there could be no subsequent strike ballot on that issue. That may be a wrong interpretation, but that was the mischief which we were trying to attack. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that such a situation could not arise? If so, there would be no need for the amendment. But if it could arise, is that something which he would countenance? If not, can he suggest a form of words which would tackle that without giving rise to the consequential effects of my amendment which he has described?
§ Mr. HowardIn answer to my challenge, the hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely different point which I have already answered because it was put to me by the hon. Member for Sedgefield. The fact remains that amendment (a) would allow trade unions to call for industrial action before holding a proper secret ballot. The 1048 question I posed, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has conspicuously failed to answer, is whether that was his intention.
§ Mr. WallaceThat was not my intention. The Minister knows my intention and he is being oleaginous in the extreme in not answering directly.
§ Mr. HowardI am delighted to hear that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. Perhaps in those circumstances he will accept that his amendment is misconceived.
The amendment would also remove the requirement that the call for action by a person specified on the ballot voting paper should be within four weeks of the ballot—another provision of the existing law which is an entirely necessary and reasonable requirement, which the hon. Gentleman appears to acknowledge.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment would also strike out provisions that are necessary to determine what is to be taken for relevant purposes as a call by a trade union. If those provisions were deleted in accordance with the amendment, that would simply produce confusion and doubt. In addition, as if that were not enough, it would leave it unclear whether a union could ever escape liability for a premature call by an unauthorised official, which the present provisions allow through the process of effective repudiation.
The fears, such as they are, that have been expressed by Opposition Members are entirely misplaced. This is a sensible and modest provision which introduces clarity and greater certainty into the law, and I commend it to the House.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 149.
| Division No. 213] | [5.45 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Alexander, Richard | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Conway, Derek |
| Amess, David | Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) |
| Amos, Alan | Curry, David |
| Arbuthnot, James | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Atkins, Robert | Day, Stephen |
| Atkinson, David | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Benyon, W. | Dover, Den |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Dunn, Bob |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Durant, Tony |
| Body, Sir Richard | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Eggar, Tim |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Evennett, David |
| Boswell, Tim | Fallon, Michael |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Farr, Sir John |
| Bowis, John | Favell, Tony |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Forman, Nigel |
| Bright, Graham | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Franks, Cecil |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Freeman, Roger |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Gardiner, George |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Burns, Simon | Glyn, Dr Sir Alan |
| Butcher, John | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Butler, Chris | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Carrington, Matthew | Gorst, John |
| Chapman, Sydney | Gow, Ian |
| Chope, Christopher | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Gregory, Conal | Moate, Roger |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Ground, Patrick | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Hague, William | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Neubert, Michael |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Hannam, John | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Harris, David | Norris, Steve |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Page, Richard |
| Hayward, Robert | Patnick, Irvine |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Pawsey, James |
| Hill, James | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Portillo, Michael |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Raff an, Keith |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Hunter, Andrew | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Riddick, Graham |
| Irvine, Michael | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Irving, Sir Charles | Rost, Peter |
| Jack, Michael | Rowe, Andrew |
| Jackson, Robert | Ryder, Richard |
| Janman, Tim | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Jessel, Toby | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Key, Robert | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Kilfedder, James | Shelton, Sir William |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Knapman, Roger | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Knowles, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Knox, David | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Lang, Ian | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Latham, Michael | Steen, Anthony |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stevens, Lewis |
| Lightbown, David | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lilley, Peter | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Stokes, Sir John |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Sumberg, David |
| Lord, Michael | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Macfarlane, Sir Neil | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Maclean, David | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Madel, David | Thorne, Neil |
| Malins, Humfrey | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mans, Keith | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Maples, John | Tracey, Richard |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Mates, Michael | Watts, John |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | |
| Mellor, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Nicholas Baker |
| Miller, Sir Hal | |
| Mills, Iain | |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Allen, Graham | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Alton, David | Bidwell, Sydney |
| Anderson, Donald | Blair, Tony |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Boateng, Paul |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) |
| Battle, John | Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) |
| Beckett, Margaret | Buchan, Norman |
| Beith, A. J. | Buckley, George J. |
| Caborn, Richard | McKelvey, William |
| Callaghan, Jim | McLeish, Henry |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | McWilliam, John |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Madden, Max |
| Cartwright, John | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Marek, Dr John |
| Clay, Bob | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Cohen, Harry | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Coleman, Donald | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Martlew, Eric |
| Corbett, Robin | Maxton, John |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Meale, Alan |
| Cryer, Bob | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Cummings, John | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Dixon, Don | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Doran, Frank | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Murphy, Paul |
| Eastham, Ken | Nellist, Dave |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | O'Brien, William |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Parry, Robert |
| Flannery, Martin | Patchett, Terry |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Pike, Peter L. |
| Foster, Derek | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Foulkes, George | Prescott, John |
| Fraser, John | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Fyfe, Maria | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Galloway, George | Redmond, Martin |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn |
| Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) | Reid, Dr John |
| Gould, Bryan | Richardson, Jo |
| Graham, Thomas | Robertson, George |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Ruddock, Joan |
| Grocott, Bruce | Salmond, Alex |
| Haynes, Frank | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Henderson, Doug | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Short, Clare |
| Home Robertson, John | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hood, Jimmy | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Howells, Geraint | Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Snape, Peter |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Soley, Clive |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Turner, Dennis |
| Illsley, Eric | Wallace, James |
| Ingram, Adam | Walley, Joan |
| Janner, Greville | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Leighton, Ron | Winnick, David |
| Lewis, Terry | Worthington, Tony |
| Litherland, Robert | Wray, Jimmy |
| Livingstone, Ken | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | |
| Loyden, Eddie | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McAllion, John | Mr. Frank Cook and Mrs. Llin Golding. |
| McAvoy, Thomas | |
| McCrea, Rev William |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.