HL Deb 14 April 1978 vol 947 cc1889-906

'( ) (1) Section 12 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 (inquiry by and report of the Service on a recognition issue) is amended as follows:— (2) After subsection (4) there is inserted the following subsection:— '(4A) In making a recommendation for recognition the Service shall have regard to—

  1. (a) the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structues and the personnel policies of the business to which the recognition issue relates, and
  2. 1890
  3. (b) the need for any recommended negotiating group to include workers sharing a common interest and to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes'.".'—[Mr. Madel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Madel

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

We now move on to Section 12 of the Employment Protection Act, which deals with inquiries and reports on recognition issues. As stated in the new clause, after Section 12(4) there should be added subsection (4A) which makes recommendations to ACAS and gives ACAS cautionary advice before it makes a recommendation for recognition.

If subsection (4A) is inserted, the existing subsection (5) in the Act will still stand. That subsection states that ACAS, when making a recommendation for recognition, shall specify (a), (b), (c) and (d). Paragraph (d) is particularly important. That is one of the reasons why we have drafted the new clause. It refers to the level or levels at which recognition is recommended. I turn to paragraph (a) of the new clause. This refers to the fact that when ACAS makes a recommendation for recognition it shall have regard to the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structures and the personnel policies of the business to which the recognition issue relates". I stress straight away that industrial relations and personnel policies from time to time change in particular industries. They are constantly under review. Indeed, if management is to do a proper job of personnel policy, it must be ceaselessly vigilant and assure itself that its industrial relations and personnel policies are up to date and relevant to its employees. Equally, employers and unions must recognise that, as Britain's technologies change, some unions decline in membership and some increase. Therefore, paragraph (a) refers to the quality of existing industrial relations and the size and structures and the personnel policies. I do not like to quote myself any more than any other hon. Member does, but at column 319 of the Committee's proceedings of 8th March I referred to the major electrification project—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) present—which is taking place between Bedford and St. Pancras and which is due to be completed by 1982. One of the problems to which I referred in that debate was that signalmen would have to be redeployed as the modernisation took place.

Therefore, a problem for the railway industry will be to which union the signalmen should belong. There may be a recognition problem, though one does not want to anticipate what may happen, but it is a relevant example to give, given that in subsection (4A) which we seek to include in the Bill we refer to the size and structure of the business and the quality of existing industrial relations.

One aspect to which we have paid special attention is the reports on recognition which ACAS has issued. The problem of limited recognition has been recognised in many cases. When ACAS is to make a recommendation for limited recognition, it makes sense to include this additional subsection.

In the "Industrial Relations Report and Review" of April 1977, ACAS says in Report No. 15 which concerns Avis Rent A Car, that it issued a questionnaire with the company's co-operation to which it received replies from 23 of the 25 employees concerned who worked at Glasgow Airport for Avis Rent A Car. That revealed that only four employees were TGWU members at the time but that a further 15 said that they would join the union if it was recognised.

The ACAS report went on to say: From the company's viewpoint a limited recognition recommendation allows it to maintain uniform pay structures on a companywide basis. The company have, however, since told the union that they do not intend to give formal recognition at Glasgow Airport. There can be difficulties and a conflict when limited recognition is recommended, and the Opposition think that it makes sense to include subsection (4A) in the Bill asking ACAS to pause before rushing, as some people have criticised it for doing, into making a recommendation.

There have been further cases since this one, which is relevant given what the company decided to do. In the December 1977 report referring to Avis Rent A Car and the TGWU, again ACAS did a survey and ascertained the views of 19 of the 24 staff covered by the reference. That revealed that 17, or 89 per cent., wanted the TGWU to negotiate on their behalf, while 13 were already members of the union and a further three were potential members. Accordingly, ACAS recommended the company to recognise the union for the purposes of collective bargaining on matters which fell within the discretion of local management in respect of drivers, fitters and rental representatives at its Euston, Colnbrook and Greenford rental depots. That was paying attention to the size of the existing work force and the quality and structures of personnel policies.

I also think that, given that recommendation No. 80 referred not just to one depot but to the rental depots at Euston, Colnbrook and Greenford, it could be said that on that matter ACAS was almost anticipating New Clause No. 6.

There is a further example. This is Report No. 63. Again it concerns Avis Rent A Car and, this time, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. In this matter ACAS notes: The main terms and conditions of employment for employees in Avis' 80 establishments are determined centrally by the company. But the company was prepared in November 1976 to discuss shift pay and shift working arrangements locally with the union. Accordingly, the Service proposes collective bargaining for the smallest negotiating group to date—i.e., four employees—but on a limited basis. I am not so sure about that one. Hon. Members may wish to make further comment on it. I am not sure whether the decision in Report No. 63 was necessarily the correct decision. Whereas in Report No. 80 the decision is tied in with New Clause No. 6, I am not so sure that that is so with regard to the decision in Report No. 63.

3.15 p.m.

There is one last report, No. 21, which was the W. S. Atkins and TASS report. There, ACAS recommended that W. S. Atkins and Partners recognised TASS generally for the purposes of collective bargaining and for the purposes of all employees in the civil and structural departments of the company's Middles-brough regional office. There were 15 staff members there who were not members of the union. There were, though, a total of 1,300 employees there. I think that in that case it was paying attention to the size and structure of the work force. Therefore, what the new clause does is to invite ACAS, before making the recommendation for recognition, to pay great attention to what the industrial relations set-up is like in the particular company.

Paragraph (b) says: the need for any recommended negotiating group to include workers sharing a common interest and to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes". I think that Report No. 21 certainly concerned a viable unit. The workers were all employed in the same place. In Report No. 63, with regard to Avis, where there were three depots, I think again that that would probably lead to stability because there were three depots and all the depots were included, and not just one depot on its own.

In no sense, therefore, could the new clause be described as unhelpful, trying to wreck the Bill or trying to change the terms of reference of ACAS—not a bit of it. The new clause fits in very neatly between subsections (4) and (5) of Section 12 of the 1975 Act.

I end by stressing two sentences in the new clause. We want the negotiating group to be viable as a stable unit for collective bargaining purposes". If the unit is not stable for colective bargaining purposes, inevitably industrial relations start to get damaged. This is why we were spending so much time discussing New Clause No. 5. I also stress the following words: the size and structures and the personnel policies and the quality of existing industrial relations". Sometimes in a company industrial relations are not so good. Sometimes they have taken a downward turn because there has been an inability on the part of management to work out with two unions which group of employees should be represented by whom. Paragraph (a) is saying to ACAS "Steady. Just before you make a recommendation, particularly for limited recognition, you should pay very careful attention, as paragraph (a) invites you to do."

All our new clauses have been designed with one object in mind—to improve the quality of industrial relations, to make the task of ACAS easier and to do everything we can to get across to the people of this country, especially those who lead full working lives, the fact that ACAS operates an even-handed policy and that it is independent and is an organisation to which people may go to sort out their industrial relations difficulties.

It is for these reasons, therefore, that I hope that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) will find the new clause a useful addition to his Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

This is the first of the new clauses that make specific reference to personnel. As someone who has been professionally qualified, as a Fellow of the Institute of Personnel Management, for many years, I should like to make a few comments on what I regard as the important aspects of the new clause.

One of the troubles that one finds in industrial relations today is the growing difficulty that arises because those engaged in personnel feel that they are gradually getting squeezed out by various organisations—by ACAS, on the one hand, and by unions, on the other.

In a good company, the relationship between the personnel function and the workers, whether or not they are members of unions, ought to be able to set the ground rules and ought, in most cases, to be able to prevent any need for a reference to ACAS.

What worries me about the Bill as drafted is that, without the new clause, we would continue the trend that has been set for at least seven or eight years, when all parties paid less and less attention to the importance of personnel management. I regret that quite a few Government Departments still do not employ qualified personnel people. That applies to companies, as well. I hope that there will be a reverse of that trend and that personnel managament will get the recognition that it deserves.

The new clause proposes that regard must be paid to the quality not merely of industrial relations and the size of the structures, but of personnel policies. Personnel policies should have three aims. The first is the well-being of the company. Without the well-being of the company, not merely the workers but the shareholders and the public will suffer. Therefore, the company's well-being ought to come first. In the end, the component parts of a company are the workers, the shareholders and the public who may consume the goods. That is the first objective of a good personnel function.

The second objective should be to be able to detect friction at an early stage. During the years that I have been practising, my relationship with the major trade unions with which I have had to deal has been on a reasonable basis, because I have established a personal rapport with trade union leaders. I find that it is possible to talk to them on the basis of complete trust and confidence. It is much easier to settle differences face to face without the necessity of calling in an outside organisation which comes in all too frequently at a late stage.

If a personnel manager is good at his job, he can detect the first signs of trouble. It is at that stage that he should try to isolate them. He must try to decide whether the trouble is genuine or is a movement of anarchy—the Minister will recognise this very well—which is deliberately working against the permanent officials of the union. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the North-West and Yorkshire there is a strong movement that is determined to smash some genuine trade union officials because they are being sufficiently responsible in trying to abide by the Government's guidelines. The personnel manager must decide whether the trouble is of that kind or is genuinely based and is a project that the union wishes to discuss and to move forward with. If the latter, he is then in a position to see how to isolate the trouble and to consider whether a move can be made by management to prevent the trouble going any further.

The Minister of State will probably agree that in 99 per cent. of such cases, rapid and complete agreement can be reached by management and union when there is a genuine grievance which both are determined to solve. The 99 per cent. can exist only where there is a proper personnel function and where the union has played its part in making certain that its unpaid officials have gone through proper training, either with the union or through the industrial society, and have a genuine understanding of their company. Many unions are now saying that they will not give credentials to a shop steward unless he or she has served for 12 months in the company concerned. Otherwise, we get quick ins and outs, which do no good and no credit to the unions.

Another problem arises when one cannot obtain agreement on a genuine basis with the union officially. At that stage one needs to decide whether one should go higher within the union and then run the risk of bringing in a higher member of the union and a higher member of management, because they are higher in the structure of their respective organisations, which in many cases will mean that they will be less in touch with what is happening on the problem. That applies even more when we bring in an outside organisation, such as ACAS, and the old conciliation machinery which existed in the Ministry of Labour and now in the Department of Employment.

Mr. Holland

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in ideal conditions, if one brings in people higher up in organisations, or, indeed, people from outside, it affords the possibility of a much more objective view being taken of the problem, and perhaps a more impartial solution? I stress the phrase "ideal conditions" because the process does not always work.

Mr. Finsberg

I do not dissent from that view. I agree that in ideal circumstances it is a good thing, because the two sides can examine the facts as presented and, because they are not involved in the heat of argument, they can take a more dispassionate view. That is the second stage.

The kind of agreement that I should like to see negotiated between union and company is an agreement in which both sides say "There will be no official strike until certain machinery has been exhausted". The ideal agreement to be arrived at is that under which both sides, having gone through the machinery, submit their case to some form of independent arbitration by which both sides agree to be bound.

I return to the first point, and I wish to stress that the personnel function is extremely important. There are three elements involved, namely, the common interest, the stable unit, and the collective bargain. Reference has already been made to the Avis case, where by no stretch of the imagination could one say that any of those three elements was present. That was one of the least understandable decisions. It is difficult to accept a decision if one does not understand the basis on which it is brought about. I wish only to stress—I do not wish to detain the House—that the common interest needs to exist first. One cannot have a common interest if one is trying to put into the same negotiating group people from different parts of the country who are in slightly different grades and whose ultimate interests cannot be said to be 100 per cent. identical. One needs to be certain that one has a proper definition of "common interest".

Mr. Gorst

Does my hon. Friend feel that it would help to solve this difficulty if provision were made for ACAS to review a recognition recommendation after, say, three, six or nine months of operation, so that the factors could be examined and the recognition recommendations varied, and new conditions, perhaps, attached?

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Finsberg

I take my hon. Friend's point. I am anxious not to detain the House. The point that he has made would probably be better made by way of a new clause. It seems that it would be possible to table such a new clause for the next time we debate this Bill. Whatever decision is reached ought to be looked at again in the light of experience. It would be interesting to know whether ACAS, given the opportunity of reviewing, say, the Avis case, would now think that it had reached the right decision and made the correct recommendation. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) gives more thought to this matter and tables a new clause, I shall be happy to add my name to it. There is the benefit of instant debate.

The second of the phrases in subsection (2)(b) is that concerning a stable unit. ACAS looked at quite a few cases involving such groups of people as bookmakers, those in the licensed trade, and those in insurance agencies. Often, by the nature of the job, the unit could not be regarded as stable because in such industries there is a history of people moving on. If, in six months' time, we were to review the answers given by those interviewed, the odds are pretty high that 30 per cent. or even 50 per cent. of those interviewed would have moved on. A stable unit has to be proved, and my hon. Friend could well adduce that argument in his new clause, which I am sure is dashing around in his brain.

My last point concerns the phrase "collective bargaining purposes." What are these purposes, and in what respect would the new clause strengthen them? If the clause were adopted it would reassure a large number of people. Strangely enough, a substantial proportion of those engaged as full-time officials in trade unions have a high regard for the personnel function and those involved in it. Often there has been the feeling not merely that the personnel function is being downgraded by both sides but that to some degree middle management is being pushed out and is not being given the opportunity of playing its part in the dialogue with the middle union structure. The clause would go some way towards redressing that balance.

For all of these reasons I believe that the clause has merit. I do not believe that it is a destructive or obstructive clause. It is a genuine attempt to help and one which, I would have thought, would find a great deal of favour with full-time trade union officials and those engaged in my profession of personnel management.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

I wish to be brief in replying to the representations that have been made to the effect that this new clause should be adopted. As they stand, the factors that we are asked to take into consideration are not exceptional and would, I believe, meet with the approval of the House. In fact, ACAS takes these factors into consideration at the moment, as I shall seek to show later by a quotation from the annual report of the Service.

It is another matter to place a statutory obligation on ACAS to carry out only these two requirements. There are many other factors that ACAS has to take into consideration when making an assessment of an industrial dispute. The inclusion of this provision could lead to legal argument and to questions arising such as whether ACAS had adequately taken those factors into consideration, whether it had balanced them correctly or whether it had given more emphasis to one factor as opposed to another. It may lead to more disputes than it is designed to settle. It seems to set out the duties of ACAS in a statutory form. Any attempt to say which duties must be followed would make legal interpretation impossible.

Chapter 9, paragraphs 16 to 27, of the report of ACAS for 1977 deals with this matter. It says: None of these factors is necessarily decisive in itself. It is necessary to consider them in combination and to decide in individual cases how much weight to attach to each. Paragraph 21 says: These factors apply generally to possible negotiating groups. It is also necessary to decide which factors are relevant in particular cases and how much weight is to be accorded to each relevant factor. Sometimes, the relevant factors combine to suggest the same conclusions, but in others, where they point to different solutions, a balancing of different factors is necessary. Ultimately, all decisions involve an industrial relations judgment as to the prospects for establishing effective collective bargaining. So ACAS is saying that it takes into account not just these two factors but a whole variety.

Nor does it deal with just one type of industry. Every industry throws up different problems. A balancing factor apparent in one dispute may not be given much weight in another. As a consequence, it would have to be left to the discretion of ACAS to decide whether to give more prominence to one factor than to another.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if ACAS has the duty to have regard to the two matters in the new clause, there is no reason not to include this provision. The new clause only says that ACAS should "have regard" to them: it is not conclusive.

Mr. Fletcher

I am aware what the new clause says. ACAS would have to have regard to those two factors. Legal opinion might be sought later to prove that it has not paid full regard to one or the other. But more than two factors are involved. ACAS may be robbed of its discretion if this is made a statutory duty. Therefore, this provision seems unnecessary. In Committee we said that ACAS should be given the widest possible discretion in the way that it handles industrial and recognition disputes. As my quotations from the annual report show, the new clause seeks to tie the hands of ACAS.

We should be taking a backward step if we attempted to write into law every facet of the work of ACAS, how it should approach problems and the weight that it should attach to one factor or another. The new clause would frustrate the Bill's intention to give the utmost discretion to ACAS to carry out its function of improving industrial relations and extending areas of conciliation. It would be unwise for the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Hayhoe

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) argued constructively and positively for factors that would improve industrial relations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), in an interesting and thoughtful contribution, gave the House the benefit of his long experience in personnel management and gave the lie to anyone who claims that the Opposition are seeking confrontation or conflict with trade union leaders. The whole essence of the constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead was that his professional practice in personnel management had always been to seek agreement as widely as possible.

I am particularly glad that the response of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) was, uncharacteristically, conciliatory. We should not let such a change of attitude pass unnoted.

The new clause was tabled before the annual report of ACAS was available to hon. Members. The quotation that the hon. Member for Darlington read and many other extracts that he could have quoted show that ACAS is taking account of the sort of factors mentioned in the new clause.

I do not suggest that we should follow the advice of the hon. Member for Darlington and reject the new clause, but, in view of what has been said, the content of the ACAS annual report and the conciliatory fashion in which the hon. Member for Darlington dealt with the new clause—

Mr. Gorst

I hope that my hon. Friend is not leading up to suggesting that the new clause be withdrawn. Despite what he has said, there are many factors in favour of its inclusion in the Bill. Obviously, I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech to give the reasons now.

Mr. Hayhoe

My hon. Friend has prophesied what I was going to say. I was moving towards suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South that he should seek the permission of the House to withdraw the new clause. I recognise that if any hon. Member refuses permission the debate must continue, but it seems to me that it would be for the convenience of all concerned if we moved on to at least the next new clause, which raises some important matters.

However, I can only suggest that to my hon. Friend and suggest that my other hon. Friends follow my advice. I have no way of compelling them to do so.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Thorne

I view the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) as probably the most hypocritical that we have heard all day. Clearly, the Opposition Front Bench, aided and abetted by a small number of Conservative Back Benchers, set out to torpedo the Bill, and, without bringing to the House more than about 30 of their number, they have fairly effectively succeeded in doing that, at least for today.

To suggest that this new clause could safely be withdrawn in the light of the ACAS report for 1977 suggests to me that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have not understood the role played by ACAS since its inception. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) rightly said, it has throughout been doing precisely what the new clause requires. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth is well aware of that. I do not think that much passes his notice in these matters. Therefore, it seems to me that the purpose of the exercise is mischief.

I noted that the hon. Gentleman applauded the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). I listened closely to the hon. Member for Hampstead and found his speech the most confused statement possible on the new clause. I jotted down some of his words. He talked about the personnel function and about ACAS squeezing out personnel management. Then he said that personnel management ought to prevent any need for ACAS. Next, drawing on his experience, he told us of some of the personnel policies in which he had been involved.

The hon. Member for Hampstead told us of the rapport which he had with trade unions. If he had rapport with trade unions, we applaud it, but the question under debate is recognition. There are no trade unions in the situation covered by Sections 11 and 12. We are talking about trade union recognition being at issue.

Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman speaks of personnel system and rapport with trade unions, the logical implication is that the trade unions are already recognised and there is no problem.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

The hon. Gentleman is displaying his ignorance of these affairs. Discussions with trade unions do not necessarily mean the same as recognition of trade unions. There may be a stage at which recognition is building up, when a percentage of the work force is in a union, when they have not asked for recognition and when the company itself does not wish to give it. There are intermediate stages, and the hon. Gentleman has either forgotten that or has chosen to misrepresent what I said.

Mr. Thorne

I have no illusion but that it is possible for employers to conduct discussions with trade unionists while still preventing them from obtaining recognition for collective bargaining, in order, possibly, to improve industrial relations. The hon. Gentleman himself—again I quote his words—revealed how he sees the situation, because he used the phrase "whether they are genuine". In other words, by implication, the more militant the trade unionists with whom he is having discussions, the less likely they are to be genuine. He established that by talking about the activities of trade unionists in the North-West, implying that in some way these militant trade unionists were not the genuine trade unionists whom he would seek to recognise.

In my view, we should reject the new clause if it is pressed to a vote. If it is not, as I said earlier, all we can do is recognise it as one of the many parts—there are a great many before us—of the tactic employed by the Opposition with the deliberate intent of destroying a Private Member's Bill.

It seems to me that those who are responsible for the procedure of the House should look closely at today's proceedings in relation to the prospect of Private Members' Bills. There are several Private Members' Bills listed on the Order Paper today which some people would like to see pass with very little difficulty. But the activities that we have seen today do not persuade some of us that we should allow those Bills through without a firm objection and without an attempt to apply to them the same standards as have been applied to this Bill by the Conservative Opposition today.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been told by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) more or less that we have been breaking the rules of the House. We have put down perfectly reasonable new clauses and amendments to the Bill, as we are entitled to do. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the list of hon. Members who have spoken, he will see that no one has made a very long speech. A limited time has been spent on each amendment. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that we are here to let a Bill of this kind go through the House without being properly amended as we think it should be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. That is not a point of order. No one has broken any of the rules of the House today.

Mr. Gorst

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) complimented the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) on his conciliatory reply to the debate on this new clause. I do not take issue with my hon. Friend on that, but I believe that the hon. Member for Darlington, while he may have been conciliatory, was wrong.

The hon. Member says that ACAS considers all the factors enumerated in the new clause, but what if it does not? What if it does not adequately consider the quality of existing industrial relations? What if it does not consider the size and structure and personnel policies of the business? There ought to be a legally binding obligation on ACAS not only to say that it has fulfilled its obligations to look at these factors but to show that it has balanced them properly.

ACAS cannot be called to task by the person who is the subject of the reference; this obligation must be made mandatory in an Act of Parliament, so that an aggrieved party can take the matter to the courts. I know that hon. Members opposite hate the sound of the words "legal proceedings" and "courts", but that is what this country has always had and, God preserve us, will continue to keep—in other words, the rule of law.

If the hands of ACAS were to be tied by this minimal diminution of its discretion, I do not think that one should apologise for it. One should be glad, and feel safer as a result, because if there is to be an aggrieved party at least he will have recourse, whereas under the blanket

Division No. 169] AYES [3.55 p.m.
Berry, Hon Anthony Madel, David Silvester, Fred
Biggs-Davison, John Mates, Michael Stanley, John
Braine, Sir Bernard Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Brooke, Peter Mayhew, Patrick Townsend, Cyril D.
Costain, A. P. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Trotter, Neville
Drayson, Burnaby Newton, Tony Walters, Dennis
Finsberg, Geoffrey Osborn, John Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Glyn, Dr Alan Page, Richard (Workington)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Prior, Rt Hon James TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lawrence, Ivan Ridsdale, Julian Mr. Philip Holland and
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott, Nicholas Mr. John Gorst.
Anderson, Donald Gould, Bryan Noble, Mike
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Graham, Ted O'Halloran, Michael
Ashley, Jack Grant, George (Morpeth) Ovenden, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Grant, John (Islington C) Park, George
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Pavitt, Laurie
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Harper, Joseph Prescott, John
Bates, Alf Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Robinson, Geoffrey
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hayman, Mrs Helene Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Bidwell, Sydney Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Rogers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Huckfield, Les Rooker, J. W.
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Ryman, John
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Sandelson, Neville
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Sedgemore, Brian
Canavan, Dennis Janner, Greville Sever, John
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Stanley Jeger, Mrs Lena Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Skinner, Dennis
Cowans, Harry Jones, Dan (Burnley) Snape, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Kelley, Richard Spearing, Nigel
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Stallard, A. W.
Cryer, Bob Lamborn, Harry Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lamond, James Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Loyden, Eddie Tinn, James
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Luard, Evan Urwin, T. W.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey McCartney, Hugh Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Dormand, J. D. McDonald, Dr Oonagh Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McElhone, Frank Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Duffy, A. E. P. MacFarquhar, Roderick Ward, Michael
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Madden, Max Watkins, David
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Weitzman, David
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Maynard, Miss Joan Whitehead, Phillip
English, Michael Meacher, Michael Whitlock, William
Evans, John (Newton) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Faulds, Andrew Mendelson, John Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Flannery, Martin Mikardo, Ian Wise, Mrs Audrey
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mitchell, Austin Woodall, Alec
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Young, David (Bolton E)
Forrester, John Molloy, William
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Miss Jo Richardson and
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Newens, Stanley Mr. Stan Thorne.
Golding, John

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Four o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

provision that hon. Members on the Government Benches want, no one will have any recourse to law or to justice. That is why I hope that the new clause will be pressed to a Division and that the House will accept it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 126.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday 5th May.