HC Deb 16 February 1993 vol 219 cc247-61
Mr. Michael Forsyth

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 25, line 8, leave out 'remains in force' and insert 'is current'.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

No. 67, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert `seven'.

No. 83, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert 'ten'.

Government amendment No. 20.

Mr. Forsyth

Government amendments Nos. 17 to 20, like many others for consideration today, have been introduced as the result of the constructive discussion of the Bill's provisions that took place in Standing Committee F.

When what is now clause 11 was debated in that Committee, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) stated that it would be helpful if we adopted what he termed the "big bang" approach to the renewal of consent to check-off deductions from salary—that is, that employers should be able to seek renewed consent from all their work force at once.

It is an essential point of principle underpinning this clause that individuals who pay their union dues through the check-off should have the opportunity periodically to reconsider their consent and renew it, if they so wish. It is no part of this policy, however, that unnecessary administrative burdens should be incurred by employers. Let us remember that we are not imposing any unavoidable duty on employers; employers are free to decide for themselves whether they wish to enter into an agreement with a trade union to operate check-off arrangements.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Is it open to an employer, as a consenting organisation, to come to an agreement with a trade union and employees that they do not have to renew the arrangements every three years or after any other specified period? Is there any reason why it should not be left to employers, trade unions and employees?

Mr. Forsyth

My hon. Friend will recognise that it is extremely important that, if deductions are being made from individuals' pay packets, consent is obtained on a regular basis. When my hon. Friend invites me to speculate about the type of agreement, it sounds like a remarkably collectivist approach. Perhaps he will explain what he means.

Mr. Bottomley

I know that one of my difficulties is that of communicating clearly. Is there any reason why an employer and his employee should not make an agreement that the consent will run for more than three years? Why should the House say that, whatever the two of them may want to agree, they are not allowed to?

Mr. Forsyth

My hon. Friend needs to recognise the fact that the agreement is between not the employer and the employee but the employer and the trade union. The employer agrees to take money out of the employee's pay packet and give it to the trade union. During and prier to the general election campaign, the Government made it clear that it was their policy that there should be a requirement to obtain individual consent from an employee on a regular basis before money was deducted.

Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton)

Does not the Minister realise that any check-off agreement is an agreement between the employer, the employee and the trade union? Three groups make the agreement possible. For the life of me, I cannot see why renewal has to be applied for after a specified number of years, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said.

When we paid rates, I signed a direct debit to have my rates stopped from my account. That direct debit did not end when I unfortunately had to pay my poll tax and it will continue when I pay my council tax this year. I cannot understand why there has to be so much interference and over-regulation, with the Government insisting that an agreement must be renewed every three years.

Mr. Forsyth

I am delighted to hear of the direct debit arrangement that the hon. Gentleman made for his poll tax as he calls it. There is nothing to stop such an agreement being made by an employee and a trade union. An employee could perfectly well pay his subscriptions by direct debit, which would not be affected by this or any other legislation.

What is at issue is the situation in which the trade union tells an employer that it would like him to deduct union subscriptions from an individual employee's—

Mr. Miller

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forsyth

When I have answered the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner).

When a union has agreed with an employer that the employer will deduct subscriptions from the employee's wages before they are paid to the employee, there should be a requirement for written consent to be given by the employee and that it should be renewed. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that because the amendment has been tabled in response to representations made by his colleague for renewal of consent to be obtained within a three-year period.

Mr. Miller

What if the agreement is specifically between the employee and the employer, and the employee fills in a form saying, "Please deduct the following sums of money and pass them to my trade union"? The trade union is not involved. In that case, there is no three-way discussion as in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), because the employee freely passes the form on to a third party for it to be collected like a direct debit. Those circumstances are distinct from those that the Minister tried to portray, in which a monolithic trade union tells the employer to make large deductions from the employee's pay packet and pass them to it. Is the Minister prepared to accept that, if an employee freely enters into an agreement, that agreement can last for the length of time that the employee or employer is prepared to live with it?

Mr. Forsyth

No. The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that, as it is late, he can get me into a muddle so that I agree to what he would like to happen. The hon. Gentleman would like dues to be deducted from the employees' pay packet without their express consent on a regular basis—

Mr. Miller

I did not say that.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, he is at liberty to do so, but not from a sedentary position.

11 pm

Mr. Forsyth

The provisions in the Bill are clear and they are perfectly reasonable and responsible. They are that if a trade union wishes an employer to deduct subs from an employee's pay packet, consent is required initially, and that consent needs to be renewed on a three-year basis.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question related to an arrangement between the trade union and the employee. If a trade union arranges with employees to pay direct by direct debit subscriptions, none of these provisions applies. I should have thought that that was perfectly clear and simple and perfectly acceptable to any right-thinking person.

Mr. Winnick

I am grateful to the Minister, who has given way a number of times. Why does not he admit that there has been no pressure from employers for this change and that the real explanation is simply the Government's spite? Moreover, if the Minister, his colleagues and supporters are really concerned about finance, would it not be worthwhile for them to publish the accounts of their own party? Secretive methods are used to finance the Conservative party, and its accounts are not published in the same way as those of other political parties. That is the problem that should be addressed, and as soon as possible.

Mr. Forsyth

I know that the hon. Gentleman has not followed our proceedings particularly carefully, but this has nothing to do with the political levy. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to consider the political levy and those matters which, so far, in the process of considering the Bill, we have avoided. This is about the payment of subscriptions using the check-off system.

As to the point that the hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm, that not a single employer had made representations, no, that is not the case.

Mr. Winnick

I said that there had been no pressure from employers.

Mr. Forsyth

The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no pressure from employers or employers' organisations for this change. Had the hon. Gentleman followed the proceedings, he would know that we have made a change. Instead of requiring annual renewal of consent, it will be required every three years, as a result of representations from the Institute of Personnel Management.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

My hon. Friend said that some employers had asked for this. My understanding is that the Institute of Personnel Management employs a small number of people in Wimbledon. When I asked which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades unions to be required to review members' written authorisations to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years", my hon. Friend's answer was: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no such representations."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160–61.]

Mr. Forsyth

I am rather puzzled by my hon. Friend's description of the Institute of Personnel Management, which has something of a reputation in this area. I said that it made representations for the change that is incorporated in the Bill which requires consent on a three-year basis. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to respond to representations from such a body. The CBI and others originally pressed for an extension of the time scale to every five years. I now understand that the CBI and the Institute of Personnel Management accept that three years is a reasonable compromise, which I should have thought would have been acceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bottomley

As a Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, may I say that what my hon. Friend is saying does not reflect the general view of those at the top of the profession. It may be that he has better and further particulars, but in another answer he said that the proposal was made to him in the first place in the response of the Institute of Personnel Management to the Green Paper. I suspect that if he dug rather more deeply he would find that the IPM may have said it, but that there is no weight of support for the measure within that organisation. I suspect that the CBI would much prefer seven or 10 years, and that most employers do not want the provision at all.

Mr. Forsyth

It is a basic principle, on which we fought the general election, that trade union subs should not be deducted without the consent of members, and the Green Paper set out our plans, which were originally for annual consent. I find it slightly odd that my hon. Friend appears to be criticising the Government for responding to representations from the Institute of Personnel Management which has made the Bill closer to the position that he evidently supports.

Mr. Dobson

Having confirmed that no employers asked for check-off to be fouled up, can the Minister confirm that the Government have received representations from employers asking them to leave things alone?

Mr. Forsyth

We have been round this course so many times. Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman of the support which that splendid organisation the Institute of Directors has given in respect of this. Perhaps I could read a brief extract from the evidence that it provided. I am not sure how many people it employs, but it represents a number of businesses and business interests. The evidence reads: The collection of trade union subscriptions by employers through the check-off system represents a substantial subsidy to trade unions by employers. The 1989 dispute in the engineering industry where a strike levy had to be deducted through the check-off system by the very employers who were targeted in the dispute supports the IOD's contention that the process cannot be justified. The institute cannot be clearer than that.

My hon. Friend quoted from a parliamentary answer that I gave him. The question that he asked was which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades unions to be required to review members' written authorisations to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160 –61.] I said that we had received no such written representations and pointed out that, under the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, it was employers who were required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years, and not the unions, as his question implied.

Mr. Dobson

Setting aside employers' organisations, which I did not mention, will the Minister confirm that the Government have received no representation in favour of this overall policy from any employer, and that the Government have received several representations from employers against what they are proposing?

Mr. Forsyth

Labour hon. Members may do what trade unions tell them, but, on this side, we do not necessarily do what employers tell us. The process by which we have brought about the reforms which have produced a transformation in industrial relations in this country has been a step-by-step approach which has been based on enhancing the rights of individual trade union members. If the hon. Member is seriously arguing that it is wrong to give individual trade union members the right to consent to deductions being made from their pay packets on a regular basis, and that I need to justify that by pointing to employer interest, then I have to say that earlier this evening the hon. Member was arguing that we were doing everything because we were responding to the Nested interests of employers. Now he is criticising me because he cannot demonstrate that we are doing this in response to representations from employers—[Interruption.] The consistency which the hon. Member seeks is the consistency of standing up—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. We cannot have a private conversation. [Interruption.] Well, not with me.

Mr. Forsyth

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was tempted into straying into a debate with the hon. Member. The point that I was wishing to make is that the golden thread, the consistency of our policy, is standing up for trade union rights of individual trade union members instead of speaking for trade union leaders and barons on whom the Labour party is so heavily dependent, and controls.

Mr. Dobson

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is, under existing law, a criminal offence for an employer to deduct any sum of money from an employee's pay packet without his or her previous consent?

Mr. Forsyth

Indeed, I can confirm that. But the hon. Gentleman did not go on to point out that, if employees are bound by a collective agreement, that can be taken as individual consent. [Interruption.] We have had this debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and members of the TUC and others have acknowledged the position. We are making it absolutely clear that individual consent will be required on a regular basis.

What is it that the Labour party is so afraid of—or perhaps not just the Labour party—when individuals have to give their express consent before money is paid—

Mr. Peter Bottomley

rose—

Mr. Forsyth

Very well, I give way.

Mr. Bottomley

The Government are in a weak position; they ought to try to sort out their arguments. In an answer, my hon. Friend said to me that there was no reason why clause 11 should entail any extra work for employers. Just now he said to me that he thought that his answer previously related to the fact that trade unions did not have to provide this renewed consent. If it is the employers who have to do it, how can he say that there is no reason why this measure should entail any extra work for employers?

Mr. Forsyth

Because, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is nothing in the legislation which requires employers to operate check-off. If they decide to operate check-off, they do so on a voluntary basis; it is an agreement between them and the trade unions. There is no statutory requirement to do so. All we are saying is that, if the employers and the trade unions decide to reach such an arrangement, there should be a proper framework to protect the rights of the individual trade union member. Indeed, it is open to employers, if they wish to operate check-off, to make a charge to the trade unions to cover this.

Mr. Winnick

rose—

Mr. Forsyth

Well, it is getting late and we have been round the course several times. I have given way a number of times, but I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick

If there is any ambiguity whatsoever—and my hon. Friends and I tend to disagree that there is —the present legal position is that an employee has to sign a statement that he is willing for the deduction to be made. The Minister says that that is not necessarily so, if I understand him. Will he therefore accept that we would have no opposition whatsoever to making the law absolutely clear that, whatever may be the collective agreement, the individual concerned should and must give his agreement? There would be no opposition from me, and I cannot imagine there would be from any of my hon. Friends. But, once having given his agreement in writing, there is no reason, except spite, why that should have to be renewed every three of four years. Why not accept that this is an agreement that has been given by the employee, and, unless he or she wants to change it, there is no reason why the law should interfere?

Mr. Forsyth

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least acknowledging that individual consent should be required, and I look forward to his support. But what a damning indictment of the trade union movement that the hon. Gentleman feels threatened in some way by the fact that individual consent is required to be renewed on a regular basis. The hon. Gentleman sounds like an inertia salesman arguing that, because he signed the form once, it will be held that he will always wish to be a member of the trade union. What the hon. Gentleman calls spite I would call ensuring that the individual is aware of the amounts being paid and is given the opportunity to renew his consent.

I am glad to commend these Government amendments to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been a member of a trade union, an employer —although I may be wrong about that—or that he is qualified in personnel management. I have had experience of all three. I do not profess to know it all and I may occasionally make mistakes. However, if I signed up for give as you earn, I would not expect the Government to say that I had to renew my consent to that, although the money that I would be giving away was likely to be more than my union subscription.

I suspect that the reason for the provision was a strike levy and some employers found that they were making deductions to run a strike against themselves. If the Government want to tackle that issue, it should be targeted. The Government have found it perfectly possible in this Bill and in others to target particular issues which upset one of the consenting parties, although it is open to an employer to decide not to continue with the check-off deductions from wages.

I suspect that we have been carried away. I also suspect that there has been some confusion and that, when I check with the Institute of Personnel Management, I will find that it suggested renewal every three years rather than annually. That was not the answer which I understood from my hon. Friend, but that was probably my mistake.

11.15 pm

I thought that when I asked my hon. Friend who suggested it, he replied that the Institute of Personnel Management had suggested renewed consent, but I am sure that that was my mistake.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the position. I assumed that my hon. Friend would be aware of the commitments that we made before the general election and during the election campaign.

Mr. Bottomley

I spend my time supporting some and saying that I do not support others. One reason for getting elected to the House is not just to be a nodding toy in favour of whatever the Government propose. It strikes me as a good idea to bring forward one's own ideas and commitments, especially if they are long term and consistent. Without straying too far from the terms of the order, that is what I did in regard to child benefit, to get the Government to adopt their old policy rather than sticking to their medium-term policy.

When I asked my right hon. Friend what assessment she has made of the extra work required by employers as a result of clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill", my hon. Friend replied: Clause 11 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill gives individuals a greater right to belong to the union of their choice. That is not quite right unless the order of the clauses has changed, because clause 11 deals with the right not to suffer deductions of unauthorised or excessive subscriptions and I do not see how that clause deals with greater rights for individuals to belong to the union of their choice. The second sentence of my hon. Friend's reply stated: There is no reason why this measure should entail any extra work for employers."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 60.] I may have asked the wrong question when I asked which employers' associations or employers have asked for trades' unions to be required to review members' written authorisation to deduction at source of union subscriptions every three years. My hon. Friend replied that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no such representations. Under proposals in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill it is employers who will be required to seek renewed consent to check-off deductions from their employees every three years."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 160–161.] Those two replies are inconsistent; they cannot both be right. Either the trade union or the employer has to do the work. In practice, I suspect that both will have to do the work.

When I was a member of the Government I used to attend a committee trying to reduce the burden on business. If the committee had come across issues involving employers having to go out 4 million or 6 million times—whatever the figure may be—every three years, my noble Friend Lord Young would have said that it should stop and that we should carry out a survey of 100 employers, 10 employers or even ask the next person in the bus queue, "Are you an employer? Do you want every three years to get a renewed consent to a deduction when an employee has voluntarily asked an employer to deduct his union subscription?" The proposal would not have lasted a moment.

I suggest that, whatever the result tonight, the Government take away their proposal and, before the Bill reaches another place, they should ask employers about it. I have done a survey, but I have not asked the employers for their consent to give their views. Every employer that I asked—the major ones feel more strongly than the small ones as they deal with larger numbers—does not want it. If they must have it, they do not want three years: they want five years, seven years or 10 years.

I have approached some issues in the Bill from the point of view of trade union members or low-paid employees. I have approached this issue from the point of view of employers. Employers agree that it is necessary to get written consent from employees who are trade union members, but they do not want to do any more.

I shall make two suggestions to the Minister. First, the provision must be modified in such a way that, if there is to be a variable sum not linked simply to how much people earn but possibly annual, semi-annual or biannual changes to union subscriptions, it can be let through without renewed consent as long as the employee, the member, is told what the new sum will be. That is much the same way in which I pay my electricity, gas and telephone bills. Information about any change in the figure is worth while. That is the smallest requirement which is needed.

Secondly, the Government should start treating those who vote for trade union leaders through secret or postal ballots as grown-ups and people who make up their own mind as to whether they want to stop or continue being a member of a trade union or whether they want to change the way in which they pay their subscription. It strikes me as common sense, fair and reasonable.

Mr. Galbraith

It is difficult for me to say much more, following the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). As the Minister said, we have been round the issue many times. Although we have come back to it, the Minister is still in as much of a muddle as he was in Committee. His position is still as rocky and difficult as ever. He has failed to provide any justification whatever for the check-off arrangement and its renewal.

Let us be clear what the Conservative party manifesto said.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

I am puzzled that the hon. Gentleman has made that point because my heart leapt for joy when I saw amendment No. 83, in which the Labour party seems to accept the principle that there should be renewed consent. Although the Government's proposal is for consent every three years and the proposal of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is for consent every 10 years, the Opposition, by tabling the amendment, have accepted the principle of renewed consent.

Mr. Galbraith

I never thought the Minister was quite so silly, but he is certainly demonstrating his ability tonight. We tabled the amendment because sometimes we accept the lesser of two evils and try to ameliorate what is inevitable from the Government. In Committee, we made it clear that we oppose the repeated renewal of the check-off arrangement and that has been the basis of our argument against it. The Minister should not be so silly, making such a cheap political point which will not find him favour with anyone.

The Minister, by sleight of hand, tried to imply to Conservative Members that there was something in the Conservative election manifesto which imposed a time limit on the regular renewal of union subscriptions. The manifesto says: We will make automatic deduction of union membership dues without written authorisation unlawful. It says nothing whatever about a time scale. Conservative Members should be clear on that matter.

Sometimes I wonder why that statement is in the manifesto because, on our understanding of the law, it is unlawful to take money from people's salaries without their express written consent. There is no need to change the law. The election manifesto commitment has been fulfilled and therefore the clause is unnecessary.

The Labour party is not opposed to members being notified of any increases in their union subscriptions. We do not object to employers notifying members that they can withdraw from the arrangement at any time. The present position is that subscriptions cannot be deducted without the member's express written permission and changes to the law are not necessary. We object to the time scale, especially the three-yearly renewal that is required. It is bureaucratic and unnecessary and it places burdens on both employers and trade unions.

We asked the Minister again to tell us who supported the idea. Again, he had trouble. He brought in the Institute of Directors, the provisional wing of the Tory party. We would expect it to support almost anything. But he found it difficult to find anyone else who has pressed for the restriction. Some employers' organisations realised that they would face a yearly renewal and therefore decided to go for something less damaging. We are willing to accept five or three years.

Let us hear some of the words of some of the employers' organisations in response to the suggestion that there should be annual renewal. The Engineering Employers Federation said that it was an unnecessary administrative nightmare without any commensurate benefits. The British Institute of Management echoed that and said: It will lead to administrative burdens on employers. The Institute of Personnel Management, whom the Minister tried to call in to support his case, said: There has been no groundswell of support from our members for a change in the check-off arrangements. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, that well-known left-wing organisation, said: Many Chambers have difficulty in seeing what advantage this proposal has for the employers. So there is no groundswell of support for the measure, even from the employers' organisations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I have asked another parliamentary question on the matter. I asked the Secretary of State a"if employers are presently prohibited from checking at any time and at any interval whether any employee maintains consent previously given for deductions of union subscriptions. My hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that employers could do roughly what they liked. But he went on to say—the hon. Gentleman might like to test the Minister on this— Existing law on the operation of the 'check-off' offers little protection to employees who pay their union subscriptions through the check-off."—[0fficial Report, 9 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 590.] Presumably they have all consented to pay. What can he possibly have meant?

Mr. Galbraith

There is no need for me to ask the Minister the question again. He might like to answer it in his reply.

The question remains why trade unions have been taken out and given special consideration in the matter of having to renew an agreement for a financial deduction. Never mind that we are not required to make annual, three-yearly or even 10-yearly renewal of the direct debit arrangements which all of us have for paying electricity bills and gas bills and some of us even for paying Access bills—although not necessarily everyone. Other deductions are made from employees' wages which do not require annual, three-yearly or even 10-yearly renewal. Such deductions include payments to charities. It is not necessary for them to be renewed every three years. Why are they different? They also include deductions for sports club subscriptions. Why do not they have to be renewed every year?

Why is it that the trade unions have been singled out? What is the basis of the measure? Is some abuse of the system taking place? If so, let the Minister tell us what it is and why he is not taking corrective action. In our view, if there is abuse, those involved in it are breaking the law and it is up to the Government to ensure that the law is enforced. If that is not the case and he cannot give us the details of any abuse, why does he persist with the measure?

Is the reason that suggested by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and that which the Minister slightly suggested again tonight? The employers are under no obligation to operate check-off. Therefore, the Government hope that if they make it bureaucratically difficult, employers will stop operating it and so damage the trade unions. Of course, that is just a cynical view not held widely among Opposition Members. We think it is a piece of utter stupidity introduced by the Minister with no justification whatever. That is the reason why we shall ask the House to support amendment No. 83 in the Lobby tonight.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May we be sure which amendment we are voting on?

Madam Deputy Speaker

A decision has just been taken on Government amendment No. 17.

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 25, line 10, leave out `remains in force' and insert 'is current'.

No. 19, in page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert `if that day falls within the period of three years beginning with the date of the document containing the authorisation and subsection (3A) does not apply.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Amendment proposed: No. 83, in page 25, line 13, leave out 'three' and insert `ten'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 296.

Division No. 154] [11.29 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Darling, Alistair
Adams, Mrs Irene Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Ainger, Nick Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Allen, Graham Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Alton, David Denham, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Dixon, Don
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Dobson, Frank
Armstrong, Hilary Donohoe, Brian H.
Ashton, Joe Dowd, Jim
Austin-Walker, John Dunnachie, Jimmy
Barnes, Harry Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Barron, Kevin Eagle, Ms Angela
Battle, John Eastham, Ken
Bayley, Hugh Etherington, Bill
Beckett, Margaret Evans, John (St Helens N)
Beggs, Roy Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Beith, Rt Hon A. J. Fatchett, Derek
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Bennett, Andrew F. Fisher, Mark
Benton, Joe Flynn, Paul
Bermingham, Gerald Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Berry, Dr. Roger Foster, Don (Bath)
Betts, Clive Foulkes, George
Blunkett, David Fraser, John
Boateng, Paul Fyfe, Maria
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Galbraith, Sam
Boyce, Jimmy Galloway, George
Boyes, Roland Gapes, Mike
Bray, Dr Jeremy Garrett, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) Gerrard, Neil
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Burden, Richard Godman, Dr Norman A.
Byers, Stephen Godsiff, Roger
Caborn, Richard Golding, Mrs Llin
Callaghan, Jim Gordon, Mildred
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Gould, Bryan
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Graham, Thomas
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Canavan, Dennis Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cann, Jamie Grocott, Bruce
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) Gunnell, John
Chisholm, Malcolm Hain, Peter
Clapham, Michael Hall, Mike
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Hanson, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hardy, Peter
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Harman, Ms Harriet
Clelland, David Harvey, Nick
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Henderson, Doug
Coffey, Ann Heppell, John
Connarty, Michael Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Hinchliffe, David
Corbett, Robin Hoey, Kate
Corbyn, Jeremy Hood, Jimmy
Corston, Ms Jean Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cousins, Jim Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Cox, Tom Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cryer, Bob Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cummings, John Hume, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Hutton, John
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd) Ingram, Adam
Dafis, Cynog Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Dalyell, Tam Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Jamieson, David Pendry, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) Pike, Peter L.
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) Pope, Greg
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jowell, Tessa Primarolo, Dawn
Keen, Alan Purchase, Ken
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) Quin, Ms Joyce
Khabra, Piara S. Radice, Giles
Kilfoyle, Peter Randall, Stuart
Kirkwood, Archy Raynsford, Nick
Leighton, Ron Reid, Dr John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles) Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Lewis, Terry Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Litherland, Robert Rogers, Allan
Livingstone, Ken Rooker, Jeff
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Rooney, Terry
Llwyd, Elfyn Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lynne, Ms Liz Ross, William (E Londonderry)
McAllion, John Rowlands, Ted
McAvoy, Thomas Ruddock, Joan
McCartney, Ian Salmond, Alex
Macdonald, Calum Sheerman, Barry
McFall, John Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McGrady, Eddie Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McKelvey, William Short, Clare
Mackinlay, Andrew Simpson, Alan
McLeish, Henry Skinner, Dennis
Maclennan, Robert Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McMaster, Gordon Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
McNamara, Kevin Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Madden, Max Snape, Peter
Mahon, Alice Soley, Clive
Mallon, Seamus Spearing, Nigel
Marek, Dr John Spellar, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) Steinberg, Gerry
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) Stevenson, George
Martlew, Eric Stott, Roger
Maxton, John Strang, Dr. Gavin
Meacher, Michael Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Meale, Alan Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Michael, Alun Tipping, Paddy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Trimble, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) Turner, Dennis
Milburn, Alan Tyler, Paul
Miller, Andrew Wallace, James
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) Walley, Joan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Wareing, Robert N
Morgan, Rhodri Watson, Mike
Morley, Elliot Welsh, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) Wicks, Malcolm
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Wigley, Dafydd
Mowlam, Marjorie Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Mudie, George Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mullin, Chris Wilson, Brian
Murphy, Paul Winnick, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Wise, Audrey
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) Worthington, Tony
O'Brien, William (Normanton) Wray, Jimmy
O'Hara, Edward Wright, Dr Tony
Olner, William
O'Neill, Martin Tellers for the Ayes:
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Mr. Jack Thompson and
Paisley, Rev Ian Mr. Jon Owen Jones.
NOES
Adley, Robert Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Ashby, David
Aitken, Jonathan Aspinwall, Jack
Alexander, Richard Atkins, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Amess, David Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Ancram, Michael Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Arbuthnot, James Baldry, Tony
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Garnier, Edward
Bates, Michael Gill, Christopher
Batiste, Spencer Gillan, Cheryl
Bellingham, Henry Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Bendall, Vivian Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Beresford, Sir Paul Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Biffen, Rt Hon John Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Blackburn, Dr John G. Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Body, Sir Richard Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Booth, Hartley Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Boswell, Tim Grylls, Sir Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bowden, Andrew Hague, William
Bowis, John Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brazier, Julian Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham Hanley, Jeremy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hannam, Sir John
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Hargreaves, Andrew
Browning, Mrs. Angela Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Haselhurst, Alan
Budgen, Nicholas Hawkins, Nick
Burns, Simon Hawksley, Warren
Burt, Alistair Hayes, Jerry
Butler, Peter Heald, Oliver
Butterfill, John Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Hendry, Charles
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Carrington, Matthew Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Carttiss, Michael Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Cash, William Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Horam, John
Chapman, Sydney Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coe, Sebastian Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Congdon, David Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Conway, Derek Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Hunter, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Jack, Michael
Couchman, James Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cran, James Jenkin, Bernard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) Jessel, Toby
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Stephen Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Deva, Nirj Joseph Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Devlin, Tim Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dicks, Terry Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dorrell, Stephen Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Kilfedder, Sir James
Dover, Den King, Rt Hon Tom
Duncan, Alan Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan-Smith, Iain Knapman, Roger
Dunn, Bob Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Durant, Sir Anthony Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Eggar, Tim Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Elletson, Harold Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Legg, Barry
Evennett, David Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Faber, David Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fabricant, Michael Lidington, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lightbown, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, Dudley Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Luff, Peter
Forth, Eric Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Maclean, David
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) McLoughlin, Patrick
Freeman, Roger McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
French, Douglas Madel, David
Fry, Peter Maitland, Lady Olga
Gale, Roger Malone, Gerald
Gallie, Phil Mans, Keith
Gardiner, Sir George Marland, Paul
Marlow, Tony Soames, Nicholas
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Speed, Sir Keith
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) Spencer, Sir Derek
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Merchant, Piers Spink, Dr Robert
Milligan, Stephen Spring, Richard
Mills, Iain Sproat, Iain
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Moate, Sir Roger Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector Steen, Anthony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Stephen, Michael
Moss, Malcolm Stewart, Allan
Needham, Richard Streeter, Gary
Nelson, Anthony Sumberg, David
Neubert, Sir Michael Sweeney, Walter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Sykes, John
Nicholls, Patrick Tapsell, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Norris, Steve Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley Temple-Morris, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip Thomason, Roy
Ottaway, Richard Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Page, Richard Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Paice, James Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Patnick, Irvine Thurnham, Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Townend, John (Bridlington)
Pawsey, James Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Tracey, Richard
Pickles, Eric Tredinnick, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Trend, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney) Twinn, Dr Ian
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Powell, William (Corby) Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Rathbone, Tim Walden, George
Redwood, John Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Waller, Gary
Richards, Rod Ward, John
Riddick, Graham Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm Waterson, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew Watts, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Wells, Bowen
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Whitney, Ray
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Whittingdale, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela Widdecombe, Ann
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Sackville, Tom Willetts, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim Wilshire, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Shaw, David (Dover) Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Wolfson, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Wood, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Yeo, Tim
Shersby, Michael Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sims, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Mr. Andrew Mitchell and
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Mr. Andrew Mackay.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 25, line 15, at beginning insert— '(3A) This subsection applies if'.

No. 21, in page 25, line 27, leave out 'an' and insert 'a relevant'.

No. 22, in page 25, line 32, at end insert— '() so much of the increase referred to in subsection (4)(b) is relevant as is not attributable solely to an increase in the wages payable on the relevant day.'.

No. 23, in page 25, line 33, at end insert— , subject to subsection (5A) below'.'.

No. 24, in page 25, line 40, at end insert— '(5A) Where the relevant increase is attributable to an increase in any percentage by reference to which the worker's subscription deductions are calculated, subsection (5) above shall have effect with the substitution, in paragraph (a), for the reference to the amount of the increase and the increased amount of the deductions of a reference to the percentage before and the percentage after the increase.'

No. 25, in page 25, line 45, at end insert— '() Where arrangements, whether included in subscription deduction arrangements or not, exist between the parties to subscription deduction arrangements for the making from workers' wages of deductions representing payments to the union which are additional to subscription deductions, the amount of the deductions representing such additional payments shall be treated for the purposes of this section (where they would otherwise not be so treated) as part of the subscription deductions.'—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Forward to