HL Deb 14 April 1978 vol 947 cc1857-89

'After section 11 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 (reference of recognition issue to Service) there is inserted the following section:— ( ) In proceeding on a reference under Section 11 above the Service shall interpret the general duty laid upon it by subsection 2 of Section 1 above so as to give greater weight to 'the improvement of industrial relations' over 'the extension of collective bargaining' if and when any conflict arises between these provisions"'.—[Mr. Silvester.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)

. I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the new clause is to resolve a conflict in the affairs of ACAS. This matter was raised in Committee. I believe that it has been raised on almost every occasion when the Employment Protection Act has been discussed.

For the convenience of the House, I should like to make it clear what is intended. After setting up ACAS, Section 1 of the Employment Protection Act goes on to say: The Service shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, form a collective bargaining machinery. The new clause would alter that so that, in proceedings which arise in matters of recognition, the service would be able to interpret that general duty in a way which would enable it to give greater weight to 'the improvement of industrial relations' over 'the extension of collective bargaining' if and when any conflict arises between these provisions. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the new clause uses the wording if and when any conflict arises between these provisions". Of course, it is not expected that a conflict will always necessarily arise. The new clause, however, would deal with the situations in which a conflict might arise.

It is not entirely a hypothetical matter. It was raised throughout the Committee stage. It was raised on the very first amendment in Committee. So it is true to say that everyone who has had any dealings with this measure has had the matter at the forefront of his mind as a major consideration, and it is right that we should give time to it before the Bill leaves us to go to another place.

The reasons are quite clear. From time to time, the Opposition have been accused of saying that ACAS is biased. There is a certain amount of truth in the suggestion that we are getting reports from people who are worried about the degree of bias which ACAS shows. However, I think that, on the whole, Government supporters must admit that we have not ourselves taken that view. What we have said consistently is that one of the problems facing ACAS is that its duties put it in a position where that accusation of bias can be levelled against it.

There are two ways in which that bias can arise within the terms of reference of ACAS. One is that only a trade union may refer a matter to ACAS. It was our hope to raise that matter on this Bill. However, that has not been possible within the bounds of order. Therefore, we are limited to dealing with the second of the two problems, which is that ACAS is also, under its terms of reference, required to secure an extension of collective bargaining.

As I have said, this was foreseen in the original Bill. Perhaps I may refer to the proceedings in Committee, because it is interesting to see what happened then. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) moved an amendment which introduced new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The effect of the amendment was to delete from the clause the encouragement of the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery, and to substitute:

  1. "(a) assisting the peaceful settlement of trade disputes and other questions arising between employers and employees by offering and providing conciliation and arbitration,
  2. (b) helping the safeguarding of individual rights of employees whether it is threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations of them or by fellow employees, and
  3. (c) encouraging the improvement of collective bargaining and, where necessary and appropriate, its extension and development and the reform of collective bargaining machinery."
At that time my hon. Friend made some powerful arguments, one of which is of particular interest. He said: we feel that if the service is to be seen as being evenhanded right across the board it should be concerned with the individual rights of employees when these may be threatened by employers, trade unions, organisations or their fellow employees. We believe that the ACAS should be seen to have responsibility towards the individual. The interesting feature is that it was not turned down by the Secretary of State out of hand. The reason which the Minister gave for rejecting it was very interesting. He said: It might have been that, had we framed the Bill so as to charge the service only with a general duty of promoting an improvement in industrial relations, the service might have taken the view—I am almost certain that it would have done so—that part of its duty would be to encourage an extension of collective bargaining and the development, where necessary, of a form of collective bargaining machinery. In other words, at that stage the Minister believed that the extension of collective bargaining happily could have been included in the promoting of an improvement of industrial relations.

However, the Minister went on to say: If by amendment in Parliament that provision were to be deleted the clear implication would be that this was not part of its function and duty."—[Official Report, Stdg. Cttee F, 8th May 1975; c. 40–44.] That is a very extraordinary reason, and I thought it extraordinary at the time. But it did not seem to matter so much then. The Minister was saying, in fact, "Had we thought of it first, we might have agreed to it. But, because we put this additional feature in the Bill, we dare not withdraw it because people will get the wrong impression." But it did not matter whether people got the wrong impression. Once the Bill had left this House, ACAS would have been required to perform under the duties set down in the legislation, and those duties would have been interpretable by the courts. Whatever anyone felt would not have mattered. What mattered was whether the law gave ACAS the power and whether the courts agreed that it gave ACAS the power. Nevertheless, that was the reason which the Minister advanced.

It is fair to say that, since at that time there was no concern on the right hon. Gentleman's part that collective bargaining was not included in the general proposition of good industrial relations and since we now have some evidence following the passage of the Act that there is some concern about this matter, it would be perfectly proper for the Minister of State, with the agreement of his hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher), to say "Time has shown that it would have been quite proper to accept this amendment at the time it was first introduced, and we do so now".

Let me explain this argument a little further. The object of the Bill as it now stands is twofold. First, when we have this dual responsibility on the part of ACAS there is sometimes a conflict with individual rights. That was an argument advanced in the original debate. Secondly, it may not always be appropriate for collective bargaining to be regarded as paramount in matters of industrial relations.

1.30 p.m.

It is interesting, as an aside, that in the original debate the point was made that, if one looked very carefully at the then Clause 1(2), one would see that there was a "where necessary" stuck in it, but it has been moved to a different place: The Service shall be charged with the general duty … of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery. But one could get much the same purpose of the new clause now being moved by moving the "where necessary" to come before of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining. However, that was not done, so it is no good worrying about it.

We are, therefore, faced with a situation in which this dual responsibility on the part of ACAS leads to the two problems that I have mentioned. One is the conflict with individual rights and the other is that it is not always appropriate for the extension of collective bargaining to be seen as a major factor.

In the original Committee, the Secretary of State said that good industrial relations would rarely be seen without collective bargaining. I do not dissent from that. But the proposition is wrong in two respects. It is not invariable, and the Secretary of State did not take into account the problem of the passage of time, a point to which I shall refer later.

However, for ACAS the whole problem turns upon being obliged, in effect, to encourage union membership in a particular union to which it happens to give collective bargaining rights. This has arisen in a number of ways. A number of problems have already been seen in the way in which this has operated.

For example, we shall be debating, at some stage on Report, the question of the number of people who are required to be members of a union before they can apply for recognition. That is the purpose of one of our later amendments. I think that it is of interest to the House to note that no great number is required. In fact, in Committee on this Bill the Minister of State was forced to admit—column 71 of the Official Report—that it would be perfectly possible to activate the ACAS procedure where a union had no members at all. Although that is rather unlikely, it is a possibility. We have had examples where a single figure membership has sufficed.

In those circumstances, it puts ACAS in a rather difficult position if it is faced with an application from a union which has a nil or low membership in a particular bargaining group. It will be faced with the proposition that as one of its duties it has to encourage collective bargaining when the basis for that collective bargaining is not there.

This is not entirely hypothetical. It can be seen, I think, by the kind of questions which ACAS asks. I make no criticism of this at this stage, but it has decided—and presumably this arises because it has to interpret its powers of operation—that when it asks questions of the work force it does not merely ask questions about the union membership but it also asks whether or not, if the union were there, people would be happy to have the union undertake the bargaining on their behalf.

It is quite interesting to look at the various lists of the ACAS reports over the last couple of years or so and to compare the extent to which the deciding factor in ACAS has been this second factor rather than the actual union membership. I take them as they come. The first on my list shows that the union membership was 29 per cent., but the support for bargaining by the union was 50 per cent.; so one adds up and gets 79 per cent., and one gets recognition. Some of the figures are much lower than that. In practice, therefore, what is happening is that the mere act of seeking recognition on the part of a union which may have a very low membership and the sending round of a questionnaire or taking advice is stimulating the recruitment of a union in that particular place.

That may or may not be a desirable thing, but it is a result, I suggest, of the requirement placed upon ACAS by the Act, and it is a requirement from which it cannot escape. It is not an optional extra. It is one which it is obliged to live by.

This has already come up in a number of ways, but ACAS has certainly come up against it in the case of Powley and ACAS, in the often rehearsed judgment of Mr. Justice Browne-Wilkinson against ACAS and in favour of the Legal and General Staff Association. Although that was about a questionnaire, it raised a number of wider issues.

Let us first consider the position of ACAS. According to that judgment—I quote from The Times Law Reports: ACAS had submitted that 'since the only issue was whether or not to recognise ASTMS questions directed to the employees' preference for another union' were irrelevant… ACAS had stressed that there were practical problems in naming the staff association in the questionnaire. One was that if the employees received a questionnaire which asked whether they would like to be represented by ASTMS or the staff association, they might be misled into thinking that ACAS had power to recommend the staff association. It is an interesting point. It is a point that certainly the judge took. If ACAS is required by its rules to encourage the extension of collective bargaining, and if at the same time it is activated by only the single reference of one union and may not take into account the possibility that people may be represented by another union or by a staff association, it seems to me that it is necessarily in conflict with itself, because while, on the one hand, it cannot avoid the necessity of seeking to establish some form of collective bargaining machinery, on the other hand the very processes of recognition may lead it to adopt a lopsided approach.

The dilemma in which ACAS found itself was elaborated by an operational memorandum, which I think most hon. Members have seen, which was sent round inside the ACAS organisation to the IROs. I shall not quote it all, but one of the interesting parts of it was that, when they were asked about forming staff associations or giving advice about staff associations, the memorandum made some comments and then went on to say, at "No. 2", Difficulties could arise should a firm be subsequently faced with a claim for recognition by an independent trade union. It seems to me that such difficulties could arise only on the assumption that a move would be good; that if one sets up a staff association and an independent trade union, or, better still, if a trade union affiliated to the TUC were to come in, that would be more desirable. But that is not necessarily the case. If there is already in being or is set up a channel of communication or a staff association, or indeed, for that matter, a collection of un-unionised and uncollective people, and if industrial relations in that organisation are harmonious, it is difficult to see why ACAS should think that difficulties would arise by the introduction of an independent trade union—unless it thought, by the very fact of the Act that set it up, that it was obliged to think that.

This morning we have been discussing at length the SLADE case, but one of the side effects of the activities of SLADE is that it has shown beyond any doubt that there are in existence many places where industrial relations were extremely harmonious, and where they were harmonious despite the fact that there was no collective bargaining arrangement. SLADE has sought to operate in places where, for one reason or another—partly historical and partly because of the structures of existing unions—it has not been possible or thought desirable by workers in those places to become unionised. Nevertheless, industrial relations have been sweetness and light, and, on the whole, pay and so on have been good.

If in those circumstances ACAS were faced with a request by SLADE that it should receive recognition, and if SLADE were able to show that it had by one means or another signed up 20 or 30 workers, ACAS would be in an interesting position. In the light of SLADE's history and the animosity that it has stirred up among non-unionised people, ACAS would be faced with deciding whether to seek to establish some collective bargaining arrangement on behalf of SLADE which might disrupt industrial relations. Such cases will not be numerous, but I think that they can and do exist. Therefore, we are seeking to remove from ACAS one of the problems that it faces.

We have to consider the position not only of ACAS but of individual employees. As I said, there can be harmonious industrial relations within a firm without a union or a collective bargaining agreement. They can exist where a staff association is not recognised as independent. Therefore, I do not think that it is proven that an independent union is necessary for industrial relations purposes.

Yet, if we go back to the judgment in the Legal and General Staff Association case—I again quote from the judge in that case—we can understand the intensity of feeling which arises when people feel that they are being forced to take part in a collective agreement and, therefore, to join a union when they were quite happy as they were before.

The judge, in his conclusion, stated: The provisions of sections 11–17 were capable of having far-reaching effects on the lives of employees affected by a reference. Such employees might be members of the referring union, of another non-referring independent union, of another non-independent union or of no union at all. It was theoretically possible that ACAS might recommend exclusive recognition to the referring union. If the employer failed to give effect to the recommendation the employer might be required to observe the terms and conditions specified in the award; and under section 16(7) those terms and conditions became part of the employees' contracts of service, whether or not the employee was a member of the referring union. It was, therefore, clear that, as a result of that statutory machinery, an individual could have substantial measure of control over his working life compulsorily delegated to an agent which he had not selected and his contract of service varied without his consent.… Furthermore, there was no later occasion on which such opinions were to be ascertained except so far as they were reflected by the views of the union … to which they belonged. The judge then went on to say that that was why he was imposing such strenuous requirements on ACAS in respect of the questionnaire. He put it, as always, extraordinarily well.

1.45 p.m.

What is happening as a result of Section 11 procedures is that people in multifarious circumstances—some highly unionised, some struggling for new forms of union, some not unionised at all, some independent and others not independent—are suddenly thrown into a formal procedure when ACAS begins to be involved. Once that formal procedure begins, there is no way of stopping the roller-coaster. On it goes, and the procedure takes effect whether employees are members of a union or not. The only thing which would save them to have another go would be if ACAS recommended that there be no recognition of the referring union. In all other circumstances, their whole work pattern would change.

It is of the utmost importance that people should feel that the procedure and the people carrying it out are wholly free from bias and that the views of those concerned are taken into account. This point has come up in sharp contrast in recent times. Although ACAS can look after itself, that is not necessarily true of some of the people involved.

The battlefield has essentially been the managerial and executive groups and the scientific workers. These are new areas of recruitment for the unions which will occupy our attention for some months.

Going back to the articles which were published at the time of the Employment Protection Bill and the kind of gossip which was going on then, it was expected that the Bill would provide the means whereby ASTMS, TASS and so on could extend their union membership. That they have found some disappointment in the decisions of the certification officer is neither here nor there. That was clearly one of the intentions when it started, and that is one of the reasons for the particular problem in Clause 1 which we are trying to amend.

Nevertheless, it is true that in this area of recruitment the worker is a different kind of animal with a different problem. I think that to attempt to apply to that area and to those people similar criteria, methods of working and attitudes of mind which have operated in traditional unions of different sizes—many of which recruit across different work places—is unwise and is already producing dangerous conflicts.

I come now to the point that I made earlier. I said that when the Secretary of State was opposing this proposal in the original Bill he did not take into account the elements of time and of change. One problem is that we are now dealing with a different kind of union member.

I suggest that for those concerned to get themselves sorted out in the manner most suitable to their way of working will take time. The average time required for the setting up of a staff association and getting it through the certification procedure is, I am informed, about two years, and sometimes longer. In that period difficulties will arise. It takes time to establish independence, to get methods of working, staff and everything together. It is a sensitive area, and it will require the greatest tact and patience. I do not wish to see the multiplication of a large number of unions and associations at war with one another in this area any more than I should have liked to see that take place with the manual workers' unions and so on in the past. It is important that we should seek to bring this about with care and attention.

ACAS activity has plunged into the middle of this situation when it was at its most furious. It is symptomatic that the Bill deals with this area. Essentially, it is getting at the staff associations and sweetheart unions which are particularly relevant in this respect. Therefore, we should draw attention to the fact that, if we are to seek these changes and to bring into the union a new kind of person, we should do so with a great deal of tact and care.

I think that the dual standard which has to be applied by ACAS is a barrier because, when we are talking about good industrial relations, it gives ACAS enormous flexibility to meet those circumstances as they change—and they will change. Circumstances are changing in the banks and insurance companies, and they will continue to change. But, if ACAS is required simultaneously to set up structures for collective bargaining, I think that there will be considerable difficulty.

I wish to emphasise one point. We must consider not only the way in which the provision operates but the way in which work people feel that it is operating. Having sat through the Committee on the Bill, I appreciate why so many people feel that ACAS operates against their interests and in a biased way. They have that feeling not because ACAS wishes to act in such a way or is doing so but because it is associated with terms of reference which almost give it no alternative.

I wish to quote from the Committee's proceedings when we were dealing with the attitude of the established union towards unions not affiliated to the TUC. The hon. Member for Darlington said: Those that have obtained certificates in the view of the TUC are not regarded as bona fide trade unions if they are not affiliated to the TUC. A lot of acrimony has occurred because ACAS has to take the initial steps in a recognition issue. As a consequence, it is not regarded by some trade unions—ASTMS in particular—as a competent body for dealing with recognition disputes. I want to make that clear because it is generally thought that the trade union movement welcomes many of the attitudes that have been shown by the certification officer, and that it approves of many organisations getting certificates which, in the opinion of the TUC and other unions, are not worthy of being granted a certificate. I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I said: I want to clarify one point. The hon. Member said that many unions do not regard trade unions that are not affiliated to the TUC as bona fide unions. Is that a correct statement of his view? The hon. Gentleman said that I was misinterpreting what he said, and he continued: I said that many unions that have applied for and been granted a certificate are not regarded by the organised trade union movement as bona fide trade unions, not that they are not regarded as such by the certification officer or by ACAS. They are bound to regard them as unions. The trade union movement resents some of the decisions that have been made. I make this point to contrast it with the view, which has been put forward consistently, that trade unions welcome the steps that have been taken; that they want to reinforce this provision, and that it is wholly beneficial to the TUC-affiliated unions for this part of the Bill to be implemented."—[Offiial Report, Standing Committee C, 8th March 1978; c. 357.] It is correct that the TUC-affiliated unions regarded it as of the utmost importance that this Bill should be implemented. I understand that. I also take the point that ACAS is bound by law not to take that position, and the hon. Gentleman rightly corrected me on that matter. Nevertheless, it is the case that people at the sharp end of the business believe that they are being given a poor deal because ACAS is obliged to forward the processes of collective bargaining approved by the TUC and because, every time there is conflict of interest in respect of a TUC-affiliated union, one finds that either it is backed either by ACAS or by the big guns or, as in this case, when that does not happen, by changing the law.

While we are talking of the fears that arise in people's minds over the matter of bias, I should like to quote what I believe was the most remarkable statement made in the Committee's proceedings. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said: We have to recognise, like it or not, that many of the staff associations or sweetheart unions arise from a relationship with the employer based—I use the words deliberately—on a notion more of class conciliation than class struggle. Those employed in industry, who in the main are in trade unions, are involved in class struggle. They are the representatives of the workers, forced to sell their labour power in order to live. They sell their labour power in a situation where capital buys it at the cheapest possible rate, and if there is a divided empire over which the employer rules—I submit that that applies to most industrial organisations in Britain today—unity within the work force and understanding of the situation in which they are struggling is absolutely imperative."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 15th February 1978; c. 139.] There are indeed many people in the section of the work force with which I have been dealing in my remarks who have not previously been unionised, who are coming to the point of unionisation and who believe that associations and unions should be based more on the notion of class conciliation than class struggle. I would not condemn them for it. People must understand that there are those with professional standing, who find a conflict between their union membership and their professional requirements in any case, whose tradition of behaviour at work is different from that about which the hon. Member for Preston, South was speaking.

Mr. Holland

My hon. Friend is suggesting that where good industrial relations already exist within a company, but which exist without the aid of a TUC-affiliated union, ACAS under its terms of reference will be required to promote collective bargaining and is under some sort of duty to be divisive, to disrupt the existing good relations and to recommend recognition of some referring union.

Mr. Silvester

Up to a point, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Within its terms of reference, ACAS would not be required to do what was suggested because from time to time it makes recommendations for staff associations. But there are a number of cases in which ACAS has felt it desirable to make decisions in favour of affiliated unions and it has no cosy or friendly arrangement with these newer bodies in the same way as it has with the established trade unions. It that is so, and if it is related to the kind of attitude I have just quoted in the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston, South, one can understand the enormous head of steam that is built up to the effect that ACAS is biased.

The purpose of the new clause is twofold. First, it seeks to separate two requirements of ACAS. On the one hand, it will make it possible to discharge its duty better because it will be freer to do it. On the other hand, it will release ACAS from the charge—whether justified or not, but an understandable one—that is it lined upon the side of one kind of union rather than another.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) will be congratulated by his colleagues on his long, meandering and irrelevant contribution. He has made a significant contribution to the policy of filibustering, which obviously is the tactic to be pursued by the Opposition in seeking to stop this Bill making progress at 4 o'clock.

It is significant that despite the synthetic indignation of the Opposition they have brought only a handful of their colleagues into the Chamber on this Bill. About 85 per cent. of Conservative Members have not come to Parliament to discuss what they consider to be a bad Bill. There may be reasons for that attitude. Some of those Members who have stayed away might think that the exercise of union bashing has gone far enough. In view of the by-election result yesterday, they may wish to hide themselves under the cover that they are not bashing the unions. Others may not regard the matter as being of great importance, since they were so soundly defeated on Second Reading.

2.0 p.m.

For the record, I am bound to point out that the Liberal Party, which has always supported the Tories in their opposition to this measure, is conspicuous by its absence. The Scottish nationalists are not here, but we can understand that this morning they are probably getting over a bad night. Perhaps they are suffering from a hangover.

Mr. Skeet

The hon. Gentleman has been making one or two remarks about the Tory side of the House. Is he aware that in this debate there are eight hon. Members on the Tory side and only three on the Labour Benches? The enthusiasm is here. We want to come to the truth and analyse the argument.

Mr. Fletcher

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he wants to come to the truth. The trouble is that the truth, as seen by the Opposition, has been reiterated in Committee, on Second Reading and during the proceedings on the 1975 Act. Everyone is getting fed up listening to the arguments being rehearsed over and over again. They know that we are on a treadmill. Nothing new has been said on this matter.

There is no substance in the new clause. To try to contrast an improvement in industrial relations with an extension of collective bargaining is nonsense. The extension of collective bargaining could lead to an improvement in industrial relations. The two are complementary. There is no contradiction. The hon. Member for Withington has spent 40 minutes trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.

The new clause seeks to take away from ACAS its discretion to treat each case on its merits. The hon. Gentleman said that he was trying to remove one of the problems faced by ACAS. What does ACAS say about this? Its annual report was published yesterday. I will read an extract dealing with this point. It says: The framework for all ACAS activities is established by Section 1 of the Act which charges the Service with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations and, in particular, of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, reform of collective bargaining machinery. In passing the Act, Parliament has therefore seen no general inconsistency between the objectives of improving industrial relations, extending collective bargaining and developing collective bargaining machinery. It has been the policy of all the main parties in Parliament for very many years to regard collective bargaining as a normal method of settling terms and conditions of employment. That is the view of ACAS, which contradicts the meandering speech that we have had from the hon. Member for Withington, seeking to drag up irrelevant arguments to prove a non-case. The hon. Gentleman is contradicting the philosophy that existed in the Conservative Party when the Industrial Relations Act was passed. Section 1 of that Act says that The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say— (a) the principle of collective bargaining freely conducted on behalf of workers and employers and with due regard to the general interests of the community; In its own Act, now consigned to the dustbin of history, the Tory Party suggested that there was a firm relationship between better industrial relations and collective bargaining. Yet we have had all of these contorted arguments, seeking to show that there is a distinction to be drawn between collective bargaining and the improvement of industrial relations.

This is a non-new clause. It is meaningless in terms of Conservative philosophy, as laid down in the Industrial Relations Act. We should not waste a further minute in considering it. The whole aspect was discussed at length during proceedings on the Employment Protection Act.

Mr. Holland

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there can be no good relations between an employer and his employees unless the employees are marshalled into one of the "big battalion" unions and represented by it?

Mr. Fletcher

I have never said that. I do not understand the relevance of that intervention. I was saying that there is no conflict between improving industrial relations and obtaining better facilities for conciliation. This was recognised by the Tory Party in its notorious Industrial Relations Act. The Tory Back Benches should have a word with the Front Benches and discover when and where the Tory Party changed its mind and decided that a conflict existed when it did not exist earlier.

We ought to make rapid progress on this issue. There are another nine groups of amendments to be dealt with, some of them dealing with matters of substance, into which the Opposition could get their teeth. To spend the time of the House on this trivial, insignificant and inconsequential new clause seems to be an abuse. I would have thought that Tory Members would have more sense than to waste time in this way. I hope that without more ado we can reach a conclusion on the clause.

Mr. Gorst

I do not want to be frightened by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) into resuming my seat within seconds of rising to speak just because he does not like the new clause. However, I do not intend to waste time or to spend very long on this matter. I am puzzled to know why my hon. Friends have inserted the words: if and when conflict arises". Why not simply say "at all times"? Why not have the improvement of industrial relations as the pre-eminent, indeed, the sole concern of ACAS, instead of placing an obligation upon the service to undertake an examination in recognition disputes?

Collective bargaining may well be desirable, but it is not necessarily of the greatest good. It may not be suitable or convenient. It may not be desired or effective. It seems unnecessary to have this as part of the mandate laid upon ACAS under Section 1 of the Employment Protection Act. It may be that there has been a slip in the drafting. If the House decides to slip this new clause into the Bill, perhaps at a later stage the requirement dealing with collective bargaining can be quietly removed.

As it is, the mandate upon ACAS at all times to consider collective bargaining is a millstone round its neck. To change metaphors, although I realise that this is something of a sacred cow to Labour Members, it does make ACAS rather a bull in a china shop in terms of its much more important and legitimate responsibility of acting as a conciliator and arbitrator.

Mr. Bulmer

I regret that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) did not respond to the amendment with more understanding, both in his own interests and because of the real fears of many employers about the drift of employment legislation. The amendment is much more psychologically important than it may be in reality. If it is clearly stated that good industrial relations must take precedence in the minds of ACAS officials, that will do a good deal to allay employers' fears.

Undoubtedly, when a Conservative Government are returned to power shortly, employers will be pressing my right hon. Friend for a whole range of changes in employment law. We believe that changes should be minimal, but some are clearly needed. The more that Labour Members push for the already apparent bias to be extended, the more difficult the task becomes to proceed on the basis of consensus and to avoid change.

Confronted with the joint charge on ACAS to promote good industrial relations and extend collective bargaining, some employers are reasonably worried about the size of the bargaining point. We saw that in Avis and IBM. There has been a worrying tendency to ignore the opinion of the majority. When a company has a depot in another part of the country and has refused to recognise a union, it may be because that part of the country is organised by another union or because of the strength of a particular personality. But the company understands that its interests and those of good industrial relations lie in having one union or the minimum number.

ACAS may say that that is a bargaining point that should be recognised, and it may throw a spanner in the works in the form of the industrial relations arrangements that it set up. Anyone who has studied Harland and Wolff will know how difficult unions find it to agree on representation in that sort of situation.

There is a further problem when employers are not allowed to invoke the help of ACAS in an inter-union dispute. The situation could be made worse if the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) became law. Then the unions might be denied the opportunity to bring in ACAS. There is a real point behind the amendment, to which I hope the hon. Member for Darlington will address himself.

Mr. Hayhoe

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) talked about the Committee making faster progress, but the only progress that he is prepared to accept is on his own narrow, bigoted terms. That is not the way to conduct a proper debate. Throughout these debates, he has paid no attention to any arguments. He has stuck rigidly to his own Bill and the briefs that someone else appears to have written for him. In those circumstances, I wholly reject any suggestion that the delays come from the Opposition.

2.15 p.m.

Of course we do not like the Bill, or want it to become law. We are seeking consistently to improve it, to make it fairer and more even-handed. Although we accept that we do not have the drafting facilities to make our amendments technically correct, we submit that they all relate to points of considerable substance. Perhaps it was nearly automatic that, as soon as the hon. Member for Darlington began to assert, without a shred of argument, that there was no conflict between the different requirements of Clause 1(2)—the improvement of industrial relations and the extension of collective bargaining—one thought of the present Lord President introducing the Employment Protection Bill. Those of us who know the right hon. Gentleman well knew that the net effect would be to destroy employment. Equally, when the hon. Member for Darlington says that there is no contradiction here, we can be certain that there is.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

Would the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the clause that I quoted from the notorious Industrial Relations Act? It said: The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles. —one of which was the principle of collective bargaining freely undertaken on behalf of employers and employees. If the Conservative Party believed that that was right then—that there was no conflict and that the two things could be chained together—why is the hon. Gentleman now opposing the same argument?

Mr. Hayhoe

I am sometimes bewildered when arguing with the hon. Gentleman? Does he see no difference? I notice how carefully he avoided reading the other principles, with all of which, presumably, he did not agree. But even the limited and selective quotation that he has used proves no such thing. That wording differs from the wording in Clause 1(2), which says that an improvement of industrial relations is achieved particularly by the extension of collective bargaining.

In the W. H. Allen case, ACAS rejected the views of the majority who wanted UKAPE to represent them. I know that there are arguments the other way, but the CBI and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions were involved. On the simple question whether there would be an improvement of industrial relations or an extension of collective bargaining, ACAS decided, when confronted with a non-TUC union, that the principle of improving industrial relations was best upheld by making no recommendation for the extension of collective bargaining. That is contained in ACAS Report No. 68.

ACAS decided that even though, as it admitted, there was majority support and although the requirements of bargaining units, and so on, were all met, there was a conflict between extending collective bargaining and improving industrial relations. It therefore made no recommendation for recognition of UKAPE. That judgment is now being questioned and the matter may go before the courts. That destroys the argument of the hon. Member for Darlington. He says that there is no contradiction of any kind.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the recommendation—or non-report—of ACAS was approved not only by the trade unions concerned but by the employer and the Engineering Employers Federation, which commented on it in its annual report. The federation represents about 6,000 engineering employers, so a substantial number of people backed ACAS on that issue.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am aware of that. Now the hon. Gentleman abandons any pretence of trying to support the claim that he confidently asserted earlier—that there was no contradiction. He crawls away to hide behind the skirts of the Engineering Employers Federation. What an indignity it is that the hon. Gentleman should creep away to that corner to hide when his arguments on the general issue have been destroyed.

The extension of collective bargaining, when done in accordance with the views of the work force and by agreement, will ordinarily bring about an improvement in industrial relations.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hayhoe

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. That fact to which I have just drawn attention was enunciated in the first of the principles to which he drew attention in the Industrial Relations Act. What a pity that he did not then have the courage of the convictions that he now expresses in saying "Hear, hear". His feet did not follow his voice in terms of votes on the Industrial Relations Bill. That is another indication of his inconsistencies.

From time to time conflicts arise between the requirement to seek an improvement in industrial relations and the extension of collective bargaining. These views are not held just by the Opposition; they are held by practically every major body in the country concerned with industrial relations. I pointed out on Second Reading that Eric Wigham, in an authoritative article in The Times, said that there was not always consistency between those two objectives. The Industrial Relations Review and Report said the same thing. Mr. Wigham said this in The Times of 6th December, speaking of ACAS: They are charged under the Act to promote the improvement of industrial relations and to encourage the extension of collective bargaining, but there are cases where the two objectives are mutually exclusive. Yet the hon. Gentleman says that there is no contradiction at any time. By so saying he rejects the considered view of one of the authoritative labour correspondents in this country. I could make numerous other quotations.

Mr. Gorst

I believe that in answering the intervention of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) my hon. Friend has been led into a very lengthy explanation. May I help him by explaining the difference between them? I believe that, in effect, the hon. Gentleman is saying to my hon. Friend "As the Tories got the Industrial Relations Act wrong, I am entitled to get things wrong as well".

Mr. Hayhoe

I do not know whether that carries the views of the hon. Member for Darlington up the scale or down the scale. As they are at a very curious level anyway, perhaps we may leave it there and let the political philosophers work it out.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there but will agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that the Tories got the Industrial Relations Act wrong.

Mr. Hayhoe

Yes, indeed. I said so at the time and I have said so since. If the hon. Gentleman had paid sufficient attention to some of the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill he would have known that I am on record as making criticisms at that time. Much of the Act has been re-enacted, in any case. The propaganda to which it was subjected was surprisingly effective but also astonishingly inaccurate in many ways and I suspect that our economic circumstances would have been much happier today if that Act—amended as it would have been if the February 1974 election had gone the other way—was still on the statute book.

At that time the Labour Opposition said that there should be no framework of law in these matters and opposed the introduction of law into industrial relations. Since the Labour Party came to power it has enacted a great deal of legislation concerning industrial relations, albeit that much of it has been very biased, pro-trade union legislation. The law now intervenes further and deeper into the whole practice of industrial relations that it ever did as a result of the 1971 Act.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Is my hon. Friend sure that he has not got the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) wrong? If the hon. Member really thinks that this is an insignificant new clause, and if he wants to get on with the business, why does he not let the new clause go through?

Mr. Hayhoe

That is a very sensible comment. I began by saying that we should make faster progress on the Bill if the hon. Member for Darlington would abandon the attitude that on this matter no view other than his own is acceptable. He now has an opportunity to recommend that the House accepts the new clause. If he says that the clause is insignificant, he can make progress by agreeing to it. Alternatively, if he argues that he said that only to argue the rather specious position that he adopts—that he thinks that the clause is of great significance—that will make nonsense of some of his earlier remarks.

We Tory Members believe the new clause to be of great importance. As the hon. Member for Darlington said, we raised the matter right through the discussions on the Employment Protection Bill. We raised the matter again on Second Reading and in Committee on this Bill, because we regard it as of great importance. We want ACAS to be a truly independent body, working under truly independent terms of reference. That is why we have tabled this new clause and sought to make somewhat similar amendments to other parts of the Bill.

I again appeal to the hon. Member for Darlington. If he is concerned about conciliation rather than with the class war of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke so eloquently to the Committee, let him accept the new clause and thereby make some progress. I am afraid that I am not all that hopeful that the hon. Member will respond positively.

Miss Richardson

rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his consent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Madel

New clauses tabled to any Bill, whether a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, are designed not to wreck the Bill but to improve it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said twice on this new clause, if the two new clauses that have been discussed so far today had been accepted some progress would have been made and the Bill would have been tidier and much more even-handed.

The most important words in this clause are the opening words: In proceeding on a reference under Section 11 above. When the Section 11 procedure has been gone through and recognition has been given to a trade union, great power and influence come to that trade union.

2.30 p.m.

No one can say that the new clause is giving ACAS a harsh or unreasonable order; it merely asks ACAS to be supremely conscious of the need for conciliation and the need to improve industrial relations over all else. Other matters are important, but the improvement of industrial relations is the most important. The dispute figures for 1977 add greater weight to our case.

Section 11(3) refers to circumstances in which further recognition is requested when recognition has already been accorded to some extent. It is often in cases of further recognition that conflict can arise between unions. Many firms in this country are only partly unionised and have only 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of employees as union members. Very often there is peaceful co-existence within such a factory or plant. I am not saying that this will continue for ever, or that the situation will remain static, but the clause says that it is best for ACAS to consider the maintenance of good industrial relations above the extension of collective bargaining.

Mention has been made of the growing conflict between unions in white-collar industries. I declare again my interest as consultant to the National Union of Bank Employees. I am well aware of the problems that the union is involved in with other unions in banking and insurance.

In banking many people are not members of a union and do not want to join a union. Industrial relations will not be improved if ACAS makes a recommendation for the extension of collective bargaining without paying supreme attention to the importance of industrial relations.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) said, we are shortly to have a White Paper on industrial democracy. If its recommendations became law they would change the whole nature of bargaining and industrial relations in this country. This adds greater weight to the need for ACAS to be careful before recommending an extension of collective bargaining over and above the improvement of industrial relations.

If, by law, we are to have a two-tier board system, I can see many possibilities of conflict and difficulties between unions over who is to be on the second board. If ACAS rushes in and recommends an extension of collective bargaining in a factory when it is on the verge of implementing a two-tier industrial democracy system, there will be difficulties and conflict.

It is a fact of industrial relations life in this country that we have inter-union disputes over spheres of influence collective bargaining and a whole host of industrial relations matters. We have to live with them, but if we tell ACAS to put greater weight on the improvement of industrial relations rather than on the extension of collective bargaining, that will make greater sense.

It will make supreme sense in this country, because in the rest of this century we shall see a rapid growth of new technologies. This is as inevitable as night following day. We know what difficulties this will present to unions in terms of the question who represents whom in particular industries and technologies.

When ACAS was set up, we were told time and again by hon. Members on the Government Benches about the need for a national conciliation service and a wholly independent organisation to which unions, employers and individuals could go to sort out industrial relations disputes. Those who said that then must surely accept the new clause.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, (Mr. Bidwell) said that he and his hon. Friends were looking for a better system and a better way of handling our industrial relations problems. If he wants to do that, no doubt he will join us in putting the new clause into the Bill, because it is a better way of doing things if greater weight is given to the improvement of industrial relations rather than to the extension of collective bargaining.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

Can the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the criteria that he would use to determine whether the extension of collective bargaining would create better industrial relations? What sort of conflict does he think would arise out of the extension of collective bargaining?

Mr. Madel

The conflicts that might arise would be put to ACAS by people in the place of work when the service was fulfilling its conciliation role. I cannot pluck examples out of the sky, but disputes and trouble would occur.

Mr. Gorst

Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. At Grunwick more than 99 per cent. of the work force made clear that they did not wish to have a trade union, and they petitioned their employer, Mr. Ward, not to give their names to ACAS. Surely this constitutes a situation in which collective bargaining imposed on these people by ex-employees would be against the interests of good industrial relations?

Mr. Madel

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point and there are further examples to come. We know that ballots are to take place of members of certain staff associations on the question of which union they wish to belong to. The ballots will be fairly and reasonably conducted. That is a case for ACAS's holding back from making any recommendation for recognition and allowing the ballots to take place so that people can give their opinion about what they wish to do.

New Clause No. 5 would put that extra cautionary request to ACAS to go steady in cases where two unions were recruiting members and it was decided to hold a ballot. If one union got recognition for certain matters before the ballot, that would be an inevitable extension of collective bargaining and could lead to the conflict to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) referred.

Mr. Harold Walker

It might be for the benefit of the House and facilitate progress if I express briefly the Government's view on the new clause.

The hon. Member for Hendon North (Mr. Gorst) will recognise that what he said about Grunwick was inconsistent with what their Lordships said in their judgment.

Mr. Gorst

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Walker

I should have known better. I apologise to the House for having mentioned Grunwick again.

Mr. Gorst

I simply want to ask the Minister whether he will say in what way it was inconsistent. I see no inconsistency.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman said that 99 per cent. of those employed at Grunwick were against being represented by APEX, the union that was seeking recognition. Their Lordships recognise that those who had been dismissed for the purposes of recognition should be recognised as part of that work force and that their view should be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not allow him to tempt me again into a long discussion about Grunwick.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) must be the very last defender of the Industrial Relations Act. I did not think that there was one left. He must be the only survivor. I hope that what he said today will be fully noted by the trade unions so that they know what is threatened by the Conservative Party in the unlikely event of its ever achieving power again.

The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment; he may have nipped out for a cup of tea—said that when his party got into power, although there would be pressures from employers for changes in our employment protection legislation, the changes would be minimal. I found that difficult to reconcile both with the speeches of his hon. Friends and with the number of changes that they are seeking to make through the medium of the Bill. What they are seeking to do through this modest measure shows—by golly—that they are in fact, threatening a lot of change.

Mr. Hayhoe

Let us have this clear. Throughout the passage of this Bill thus far we have said that in our view the recognition sections of the Employment Protection Act are not satisfactory. We were willing to enter into discussions to try to reach an agreed programme for change, but we were opposed to a unilateral change that expressed one point of view. It is reasonable, in accordance with all the traditions of the House to put down a whole series of amendments and clauses covering important points, to ventilate these in debate and to vote upon them. There is nothing inconsistent in our attitude, and nothing inconsistent with the policy statements which we have made about the sort of legislation which the next Conservative Government will bring in.

Mr. Walker

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of the amendments and new clauses which he and his hon. Friends have tabled—especially the new clause now before us—go considerably beyond recognition. Notwithstanding the Long Title, the new clause would amend not the recognition provisions but the terms of reference of ACAS.

Mr. Hayhoe

With great respect, I cannot allow that to pass without comment. I know that my hon. Friends wanted to table an amendment to alter Clause 1. That was not in order. What is in order—this is the subject matter of the clause now before us—is to query, in respect of recognition issues and only recognition issues, whether ACAS should give greater weight to the improvement of industrial relations over the extension of collective bargaining.

Mr. Walker

When the hon. Gentleman reflects on the debate and the arguments that the Opposition have deployed, he will, I think, have to recognise that he and his hon. Friends have been arguing for a wider application of what they seek to do, extending it to the terms of reference of ACAS.

With respect, I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on the point that I took him to imply in his recent intervention. There probably are situations in which good industrial relations are at risk through the extension of collective bargaining. We have had one case put to us in which there was a clear conflict, recognised by ACAS, and ACAS did what, presumably, the Opposition think right in such circumstances, putting good industrial relations first. I refer to the case of W. H. Allen, at Bedford.

I hope that I am entitled to jump ahead for a moment and make a brief reference to New Clause No. 12, tabled by Opposition Members. I hope that we shall come to that clause very soon and that in debating it we shall have the present discussion in mind. If New Clause No. 12 were incorporated in the Bill and enacted, UKAPE, which was denied a recognition recommendation at W. H. Allen, would secure its recognition automatically, notwithstanding the effect on industrial relations at that firm. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

There has been nothing new in the debate. As has been said from both sides, we have been arguing interminably about this business over the past two years. I am sure that the House does not expect me once again to go over all the arguments that we have deployed in making clear why the terms of reference for ACAS were chosen and why we believe them to be absolutely right. I advise the House to stick to those terms of reference as we now have them.

Where a conflict does arise—I recognise that it may do so—it is far better to leave it to the good judgment of ACAS, as in the W. H. Allen case, to make its own assessment of the weight of importance to be attached and, on the one hand, to the extension of collective bargaining and, on the other, to the need to preserve good industrial relations. I believe that in 99.9 per cent. of cases they will be synonymous—although I recognise that there may be the odd case, such as I and hon. Members have instanced, where there is a doubt. In such circumstances, as I say, it is much better to leave it to the good judgment of ACAS in each situation, leaving the terms of reference as they are. I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Gorst

How can the Minister reconcile saying, on the one hand, that we should leave ACAS with the terms of reference produced back in 1975, because they are all right and, on the other, support the introduction of this Bill at the same time? He cannot have his cake and eat it.

Miss Richardson

rose in her place ana claimed to move, That the Question now put.

Division No. 167 AYES 2.45 p.m.
Anderson, Donald Grant, George (Morpeth) Noble, Mike
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Grant, John (Islington C) O'Halloran, Michael
Atkinson, Norman Grocott Bruce Orbach, Maurice
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Ovenden, John
Bates, Alf Harper, Joseph Park, George
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Pavitt, Laurie
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Prescott, John
Bidwell, Sydney Hayman, Mrs Helene Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Heffer, Eric S. Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Henderson, Douglas Robinson, Geoffrey
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rooker, J. W.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Huckfield, Les Ryman, John
Canavan, Dennis Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Sedgemore, Brian
Clemitson, Ivor Hughes, Roy (Newport) Sever, John
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Hunter, Adam Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cohen, Stanley Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cowans, Harry Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Skinner, Dennis
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Snape, Peter
Cryer, Bob Jones, Dan (Burnley) Spriggs, Leslie
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Kelley, Richard Stallard, A. W.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Lamborn, Harry Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Dormand, J. D. Lamond, James Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Urwin, T. W.
Duffy, A. E. P. Loyden, Eddie Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Luard, Evan Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) McCartney, Hugh Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) McDonald, Dr Oonagh Ward, Michael
English, Michael McElhone, Frank Watkins, David
Evans, John (Newton) Madden, Max Weitzman, David
Faulds, Andrew Mallalieu, J. P. W. Whitlock, William
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Maynard, Miss Joan Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Flannery, Martin Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mendelson, John Wise, Mrs Audrey
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mikardo, Ian Woodall, Alec
Forrester, John Mitchell, Austin Wrigglesworth, Ian
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Young, David (Bolton E)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Molloy, William
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Moonman, Eric TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Golding, John Moyle, Roland Miss Jo Richardson and
Gould, Bryan Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Mr. Stan Thorne.
Graham, Ted Newens, Stanley
NOES
Berry, Hon Anthony Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Scott, Nicholas
Biggs-Davison, John Le Marchant, Spencer Scott-Hopkins, James
Bulmer, Esmond Lester, Jim (Beeston) Skeet, T. H. H.
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stanley, John
Crowder, F. P. Madel, David Townsend, Cyril D.
Elliott, Sir William Mates, Michael Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Weatherill, Bernard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Mayhew, Patrick Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Newton, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan Page, Richard (Workington) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gorst, John Prior, Rt Hon James Mr. A. P. Costain and
Hayhoe, Barney Ridsdale, Julian Mr. Fred Silvester.
Holland, Philip St. John-Stevas, Norman

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division No. 168] AYES [2.56 p.m.
Berry, Hon Anthony Elliott, Sir William Glyn, Dr Alan
Biggs-Davison, John Finsberg, Geoffrey Gorst, John
Bulmer, Esmond Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Grieve, Percy
Crowder, F. P. Gardiner, George (Reigate) Hayhoe, Barney

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 34.

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 130.

Holland, Philip Newton, Tony Townsend, Cyril D.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Page, Richard (Workington) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Le Merchant, Spencer Prior, Rt Hon James Weatherill, Bernard
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Ridsdale, Julian Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott, Nicholas
Madel, David Sinclair, Sir George TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mates, Michael Skeet, T. H. H. Mr. Fred Silvester and
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stanley, John Mr. A. P. Costain.
Mayhew, Patrick
NOES
Anderson, Donald Grant, John (Islington C) O'Halloran, Michael
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Grocott, Bruce Orbach, Maurice
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Ovenden, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Harper, Joseph Park, George
Bates, Alf Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Pavitt, Laurie
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Prescott, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hayman, Mrs Helene Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bidwell, Sydney Heffer, Eric S. Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Henderson, Douglas Robinson, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rooker, J. W.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Huckfield, Les Ryman, John
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Sedgemore, Brian
Canavan, Dennis Hughes, Roy (Newport) Sever, John
Clemitson, Ivor Hunter, Adam Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Stanley Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cowans, Harry Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Skinner, Dennis
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Snape, Peter
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Kelley, Richard Spearing, Nigel
Cryer, Bob Kilroy-Silk, Robert Spriggs, Leslie
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lamborn, Harry Stallard, A. W.
Davies, Bryar (Enfield N) Lamond, James Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Dormand, J. D. Loyden, Eddie Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Luard, Evan Urwin, T. W.
Duffy, A. E. P. McCartney, Hugh Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McDonald, Dr Oonagh Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) McElhone, Frank Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Madden, Max Ward, Michael
English, Michael Mallalieu, J. P. W. Watkins, David
Evans, John (Newton) Maynard, Miss Joan Weitzman, David
Faulds, Andrew Meacher, Michael Whitlock, William
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Flannery, Martin Mendelson, John Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mikardo, Ian Wise, Mrs Audrey
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mitchell, Austin Woodall, Alec
Forrester, John Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Molloy, William Young, David (Bolton E)
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Moonman, Eric
Golding, John Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gould, Bryan Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Miss Jo Richardson and
Graham, Ted Newens, Stanley Mr. Stan Thorne.
Grant, George (Morpeth) Noble, Mike

Question accordingly negatived.