Skip to main content

General Provisions As To Interpretation

Volume 876: debated on Thursday 11 July 1974

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 21, line 12, leave out from 'which' to end of line 22 and insert—

  • '(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or a group of employers or of one or more employers' associations; and
  • (b) is not liable to interference by an employer or any such group or association (arising out of the provision of financial or material support or by any other means whatsoever) tending towards such control'.—[Mr. Booth.]
  • With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 98, in page 21, line 22, at end insert

    'and every trade union shall be deemed to be an independent trade union unless the contrary is proved'.

    Amendment No. 98 is an Opposition amendment. Amendment No. 21 is the revised definition of an independent trade union. I did not know that we would be dealing with it formally, and I should like to hear a word of explanation of it.

    I should like the Minister to say why he is not prepared to accept Amendment No. 98. I think that his new definition is better than the old one since one can understand it. In addition, I do not think there is a fused participle in it. In any case, it makes sense. However, I suggest that it is subject to the disadvantage that if a union wants to establish that it is an independent trade union—and there will be occasions when a union wants to establish that—if somebody challenges that fact the union will have to prove all the ingredients of this new definition. The second paragraph entails proving a double negative, and to try to prove a double negative is something that strikes a chill into the heart. All that our amendment says is that there should be a presumption that every trade union shall be deemed to be an independent trade union unless the contrary is proved.

    I should have thought that Amendment No. 98 was a pro-union amendment because it is saying that if a union wants to take advantage of certain provisions, for which purpose it must satisfy the court or whoever is concerned that it is an independent union, that shall be deemed to be the case until somebody challenges it and proves the contrary. It is in that spirit that the amendment is offered, as a provision which would be of assistance to a union finding itself doing something in connection with which it wished to establish that it was an independent trade union. A union would have to set out to prove these ingredients only if someone had challenged it. On the wording of the amendment, the onus would be on the challenger to prove that it was not an independent trade union rather than the union having to prove that it was.

    I suggest that our amendment is helpful. I shall not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take this matter to a Division, however, because I do not think it is the kind of matter on which to divide the House. It is rather one to which we should try to find a solution. I invite the Minister to say a word on it so that we may keep trying to find a solution.

    I hope that in seeking to move Amendment No. 21 formally I did not give the impresion that I was trying to avoid having to give an explanation or a debate. I overlooked the fact that Amendment No. 21 was coupled with Amendment No. 98.

    First, Amendment No. 21 would replace paragraph (b) of the definition of "independent trade union" which appeared in the Bill as originally printed. We are doing this to meet a number of adverse criticisms made of paragraph (b) in Committee, and not only the criticism that it contains a fused participle, although that has caused us some searching.

    We could not turn to normal authorities to find out whether that particular criticism was crucial. I do not know whether Professor Wedderburn or Mr. Kahn-Freund or any other eminent gentlemen who are such authorities on these matters could have told us. We consulted two good authorities on the English language which gave conflicting opinions on the point, so we addressed ourselves to other criticisms of paragraph (b). In particular, we were concerned that paragraph (b) of our definition rested on whether or not facilities were provided by an employer for a union as one of the tests of whether or not the union was independent. We quickly realised—

    May I asist the hon. Gentleman? I accept that his definition is a better one and we shall accept it. All that I was saying was directed to our own amendment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give further explanation of the definition, so be it, but that was not what I was inviting him to do. If he wishes to save time and make progress, I shall be perfectly content if he addresses himself to whether he will accept the presumption that we would like to see added to the definition, and if not, why not.

    8.45 p.m.

    I gladly respond to the hon. and learned Gentleman's invitation The reason why we are not willing to accept Amendment No. 98, which would have the effect of deeming all trade unions to be independent unless the contrary was proved, is that we do not think that at present the automatic presumption is justified.

    We have regard to the fact that the CIR in a number of its reports has pointed out that some of the challenges to recognition made under the provisions of the 1971 Act were on the basis that the existing union or staff association was not independent. The CIR took account of this and decided that it was one of the factors appropriate for consideration before granting recognition to a union. It might be possible in statutory provisions for the conciliation and arbitration service to provide a mechanism for testing whether or not a union could Le regarded as independent for the purposes of registration.

    Meanwhile we think that it would be better to rely on the definition in the Bill. If a union sought to claim the protection of being an independent union, it would be for the court to decide whether or not it was within the definition, or if someone sought to exercise a right which depended on the person against whom he was acting not being independent it would be for him to put that before the court and prove accordingly. That is the best way of doing it, and that is why we cannot accept the Opposition amendment.

    The Opposition propose not to press Amendment No. 98 but, instead, to consider what the Minister has said. If it is necessary to return to the matter, there are further stages when that can be done.

    Amendment agreed to.

    I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 22, in the definition of ' union membership agreement ' at end insert:

    'or of another appropriate independent trade union'.

    No. 96, in Schedule 1, page 27, leave out lines 35 to 43 and insert:

  • '(a) it is the practise in accordance with a union membership agreement, for all the employees of this employer or all ememployees of the said class as the dismissed employee to belong to independent trade unions; and
  • (b) the reason for the dismissal was that the employee was not a member of an appropriate independent trade union and had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of such a trade union'.
  • No. 102, in page 27, line 38, leave out

    'a specified independent trade union, or to one of a number of specified'.

    No. 103, in page 27, line 41 leave out out from the first 'of' to the end of line 43 and insert:

    'an appropriate independent trade union and had refused or proposed to refuse to become or remain a member of such a trade union'.

    This group of amendments raises one of the most important issues in the Bill. It so happens that it also arises in a part of the Bill which at first sight is not the easiest part to understand, but in the verbiage are to be found changes which the Government propose which are of profound importance not only to millions of persons who are not members of trade unions but to many people who are members and who may suffer through these provisions if they remain unamended. A number of well-known bodies have expressed grave concern about the provisions and we believe—I know that the Liberal Party takes the same view—that their concern is justified. The bodies include the Institute of Journalists, which has made representations to both our parties, and those representations have fallen on equally fertile ground in both parties. Other bodies which have made representations include the Confederation of Employee Associations, the Confederation of Professional and Executive Associations, the Newspaper Society, and the Steel Industry Management Association.

    Some societies deserve credit for making their representations at a suitably early stage. Other bodies, and particularly the newspaper societies, made them desperately late.

    I do not think that I can comment on that. I think that the newspaper societies' representations came mainly through newspaper proprietors. The speed varied with which newspaper proprietors in different parts of the country responded. Representations from the Steel Industry Management Association came quite recently. I think that the airing that was given to this matter in Committee rightly and usefully drew attention to the dangers, and so more and more people appreciated what it was all about.

    I now return to where I started. This is a part of the Bill which is so complex that anyone could be forgiven for not immediately appreciating the full signific ance of the paragraphs with which we are concerned. We had a substantial debate on this matter in Committee and everything that was said there is on the record. Therefore, I propose to try to cut across that debate and to put the point as briefly as possible, putting it in practical terms—namely, translating the legal language as far as possible into practical terms. To do so it is necessary to draw the attention of the House to page 27 of the Bill.

    This debate is on Amendment No 101, which is an amendment to a definition. In fact, the core of the matter is to be found in Amendment No. 96. which is the amendment to the schedule out of which all the difficulty arises. In page 27 we find set out the various paragraphs which are relevant to the argument with which I have to seek to cope. It is first necessary to draw attention to paragraph 7(4) which is an integral part of the argument. Sub-paragraph (4) says that
    "for the purposes of this Schedule the dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded as having been unfair if the reason for it … was that the employee was, or proposed to become, a member of an independent trade union;"
    "had taken, or proposed to take, part at an appropriate time in the activities of an independent trade union."
    The sub-paragraph says, to put it in simple language, that if an employer sacks a man for taking part in the activities of an independent trade union, or because he proposes to do so, the dismissal shall be unfair and that the man shall be entitled to compensation. Probably everyone would say, "Of course, that must be the law." Probably no one could contemplate that a man could be sacked for taking part in trade union activities and be deprived of compensation for unfair dismissal. But as the Bill stood before Committee that is exactly what could have happened.

    Paragraph 7(5), as it was, went on to say that notwithstanding sub-paragraph (4), dismissal for taking part in the activities of an independent trade union or proposing to do so might be fair in the circumstances set out in the sub-paragraph. I am glad that the Government had the good sense to withdraw subparagraph (5). We shall come to some consequential amendments later.

    But now we have the new sub-paragraph (6). I hope to satisfy the House that almost all the dangers which were inherent in the situation while sub-paragraph (5) was there still exist. I still cherish the hope that if the House is satisfied that that is the case—as it is—there will be Labour Members as well as Opposition Members saying, "No, we will not have that."

    Let me say at once, to pre-empt any argument based upon it, that I recognise that there is some similarity between the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) and those of Section 17 of the 1971 Act. That was not referred to in Committee, because the Minister probably accepts that those provisions in the 1971 Act are in such a different context that reliance upon them here would be irrelevant. The Minister of State kindly nods agreement, so I shall not pursue the point.

    That enables me to come straight to sub-paragraph (6) and to demonstrate to the House, by taking examples of how it would work, what worries us about it. Let me take first the case of a single union. I refer to the case in which in a particular plant there is one union, which wants to persuade an employer to get rid of employees who are not members of any union. At present, that union could bring pressure to bear on the employer to dismiss the man, and if it were strong enough it could put the employer in a position in which he had to dismiss him. But at least the man would receive compensation for unfair dismissal, and uncle: a combination of provisions the union might also be required to make a contribution to that compensation. If we pass the measure in its present form, all that goes.

    The pattern I am about to suggest to the Minister is the one which I think we must accept would be followed if we substituted for the present provisions those proposed in sub-paragraph (6). If the union were strong enough, it would tell the management "We want a union shop agreement, with us as the only specified union", and it would get that. It could then tell management, "That man, that man, and that man, are not members of the union, let alone members of our specified union, and you must dismiss them." If a union is strong enough to obtain a union membership agreement in which it is the only specified union, it is but a small step to suppose that it is strong enough to get its way in this.

    The union does not even have to give the man a chance to join it before it can use these provisions. If the provision could be read in such a way that before anybody could take advantage of subparagraph (6) a man must at least be given a chance to join the union, that would be something. But, as it stands, if a man tells the union, "I should like to join", all that the union has to do is to say, "We shall not give you a card". Then it can tell the employer, "This man is not a member of this union. Under the provisions of paragraph (6), if you do as we say and sack him, you will not have to pay him any compensation." That would be right, if that was what the union said to the employer. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with this premise—

    9.0 p.m.

    If the Minister dissents from it let him point to the provisions of this paragraph which do not lead to the effect I have suggested. I believe that the effect of the sub-paragraph, as at present drawn, is exactly as I have stated. It is dreadful if that is the case. We in the Conservative Party—no doubt the Liberal Party feels the same—simply will not stand for the loading of the odds against the individual in that way. It is outrageous. But that is not all; the sub-paragraph is obviously intended to apply to cases—I hope that hon. Members who are not members of unions will regard this aspect of the matter as particularly interesting—in which the man to be dismissed is a member of an independent trade union but not one of the unions specified in the agreement, otherwise there would be no point in having the word "specified" in the subparagraph. The Minister appears to agree with that.

    This can be illustrated by reference to a matter which is currently causing grave concern. I stress that I am not speaking here in a hypothetical or fancy way. The point I am making is directly related to something which we can now see going on. Let us take a two-union situation in which one union is stronger than the other. The stronger union goes to the employer and says, "We want a union membership agreement with just us as the specified union." If it is strong enough—it is, after all, a test of strength—it will get a union membership agreement on those terms. Once it has got that agreement it can tell the employer that the members of the other union must go, or the recognised union will go on strike. If the union is strong enough to get a union membership agreement it will be strong enough to have its way in this respect.

    All the other ex-hypothesi members of an independent trade union have one of two alternatives—either to join the smaller, weaker union or to join the stronger one; although I suppose there is another alternative in relation to the smaller union. If it happens to be nonaffiliated it can affiliate and then rely on Bridlington. If that is what the Government have in mind—to drive the nonaffiliated weaker unions into affiliation, it is disgraceful. If one were cynical one might be forgiven for supposing that that objective is at the back of someone's mind. I should be glad to hear the Minister's observations on that possibility.

    I have postulated the sort of thing that might happen. There is a current dispute between the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. A similar situation could arise in this case.

    It may not be that all members of the National Union of Journalists take this view, but we know from its publicity that the leaders are on record as saying that they want all grades of those concerned in the industry, including all who are members of the Institute of Journalists, and editors, to be full members of the one union. If the Bill is passed in this form it will undoubtedly be available to the stronger of those two unions as an additional weapon for getting what it has openly said it wants, and, what is more, for getting it in the wrong way.

    It is disgraceful that an advantage should be given either to a union, as against an individual, or to the stronger of two unions in a two-union situation by altering the provisions in this schedule, particularly when we remember that the purpose of the schedule is to provide compensation for unfair dismissal. It should be confined to that.

    It is a disgraceful misuse of the law to alter the provisions so as to secure some result other than that—particularly the kind of result which I suggest will flow from these provisions—whether it be intentional or otherwise. We think that it is intentional because we cannot see any other reason why the provisions should be revised so as to give an advantage to the strong against the weak.

    At whose expense is all this being done? It is being done at the expense of the unfortunate individual, be he a non-union member or a member of an independent union other than that which has the union membership agreement. The result of it would be that he would be applying for compensation, which could be several thousands of pounds. It has not been as large as that yet. What we are talking about is related to the union membership agreement, which is the new phrase for the closed shop. If a union takes advantage of these provisions to drive out people who are not members of the union or who are members of other unions and a monopoly situation is created, it follows that the unfortunate individual who is driven out could have grave difficulty in getting another job elsewhere. Therefore, the compensation which would accrue to him, if he were not deprived of it by this provision, could be substantial.

    It is a disgraceful misuse of the law to use it to secure this result. It is disgraceful to do it at the expense of an individual's right to compensation. The Minister may now have got himself into a muddle. Suppose the dismissal is fair under sub-paragraph (6). The employer can put that forward by way of defence. It may also be in some circumstances unfair under sub-paragraph (4). To the employer that will be an admissible reason, but it cannot prevent the man who has been dismissed from relying on subparagraph (4) as establishing that his dismissal was unfair.

    Is it not possible that an employer who had been obliged to dismiss an employee at the end of the sequence of events that I have put forward in a two-union situation would put forward the defence, under sub-paragraph (6), that the dismissal was fair because all the facts came within sub-paragraph (5), but that the employee who had been dismissed might be able to say with equal force that he had been dismissed because he was participating in the affairs of an independent trade union, and, unhappily, that was not the independent trade union specified in the trade union agreement?

    There may be an answer to that dilemma. If there is, I suspect that it is detrimental to the unfortunate employee who finds himself in that position. If that is the answer, it is every bit as disgraceful as all the other provisions I have castigated.

    The Government may say that even if I am right in what I say about the ploys that might be adopted it is not their intention that they should happen. In Committee the Government said that they were neutral and did not intend any of the things which I put before them. If the Government mean that, their course is simple. They should accept the amendment. The amendment does not strike at the all-union shop. If the Government do not want to see the result of which I have been speaking, their course is to accept Amendment No. 96, which sets out the revised wording of the paragraph rather than making piecemeal amendments. The amendment preserves what the Minister wants to preserve and avoids, the evils which we say flow from his wording.

    If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendment, the House and the country can draw only one conclusion, which is that the changes are intended to favour particular groups of workers against other groups. The person who will suffer under sub-paragraph (6) if the Government have it wrong is the worker. The person who will benefit from it is another worker. Those who will benefit are already strong and those who will suffer are weak.

    9.15 p.m.

    It would be idle for the Minister to suggest that the weak will derive some benefit from the subsection and the strong no benefit at all. Because the subsection echoes what we have so often found in the Bill—namely, that it gives advantage where enough advantage already lies and ignores the rest, who are weak and need some assistance—we seek to remedy the situation. When we get down to brass tacks and reduce this somewhat complicated language to practical terms, we must conclude that the House cannot allow the provision to remain unamended. We suggest that our amendment will make a great improvement to the situation.

    So far I have spoken almost entirely to Amendment No. 96. Amendment No. 101 relates to the definition of a union membership agreement. It may well be agreed that it is desirable to make such an amendment, and I shall not spend any time on that point. The crux of the matter is dealt with in Amendment No. 96. I understand that the Chair will permit a separate Division on that amendment. I hope that the amendment will be given wholehearted support, since this is a matter of great importance to many people who need our help—far more than do those who would benefit from the subsection in its present form.

    There are parts of the Bill in which the subservience of the Government to requests by the trade union movement to be given legal privileges and immunities has been carried to ridiculous lengths. The provisions with which we are now dealing show the power which is being given to trade unions which operate closed shop agreements and what will happen to members of smaller unions who do not belong to the larger organisations. It almost takes one's breath away that any responsible trade union leader could have requested such a thing.

    I am sure the Government will want to reconsider the powers which they are seeking to give trade unions. Indeed, it will be quite disgraceful if they do not reconsider the matter at the end of the debate. The amendment illustrates how greatly an individual can be affected by a closed shop agreement where power is abused and where an individual or group of individuals are singled out in an irresponsible way. This is what happens when complete immunity is given. The Government are depriving the individual of redress against the irresponsible use of trade union power.

    It is undeniable that these abuses will happen. Only a few people on the far side of the argument believe that trade unions are in a separate category from other powerful institutions and are incapable of abusing the rules or eroding the rights of members. Most people know that some of the worst cases of individuals adversely affected by union power arise in the enforcement of closed shop agreements when a man's dismissal is sought and he is "sent to Coventry'. All too often, men dismissed in these circumstances in some industries have great difficulty in finding other employment.

    There may sometimes be a serious reason why a union withdraws membership. A union is entitled to its rules and to expel members who are in breach, and in a closed shop there are certain consequences. But there have been cases of membership being withdrawn almost frivolously. Sometimes it is because men have refused to take part in a strike which began as an unofficial strike but which later, when the position of those who led it has become stronger, leads to the withdrawal of membership from those who did not follow militant leadership at the right time. Sometimes these matters come down to clashes of personality between a union official and an individual in the works. In such cases the law should protect the individual.

    Some who support what they regard as union rights see any individual who in any circumstances finds himself outside a union as an aberrant character, a deviant, a mischief-maker, eccentric or crank. Sometimes the people in the middle of industrial disputes who refuse to join the union are eccentric or difficult to get on with. But the law and society should not persecute the crank, the eccentric, the man who wants to walk alone. It is appalling to see a Left-wing party which contains men of some liberal views being intolerant of the eccentric and supporting a union's right to persecute.

    That is precisely what the Government have secured. Their change of the law has only one effect. It means that a man who is sacked for this purpose will get no compensation. So aberrant is he and so intolerable to the Labour Party that it insists that his employers should pay him no money if he is dismissed.

    The hon. Member is making a very serious charge against the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right too."] I take it that I command the agreement of some hon. Members in that statement. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me of one instance of a union acting in the way he has described, so as to substantiate the charge that he has made?

    Is the Minister suggesting that I should give him a single instance of an "angry silence" type of situation in which a union member has been expelled in these circumstances? I cannot think of an individual case, apart from that of Mr. Goad, who actually brought an action under our legislation. I do not want to say anything about Mr. Goad. I have never met him and he may be an unusual or eccentric character, but, as I said, such eccentrics should be tolerated.

    To throw the question back, is the Minister asserting that no such cases can occur and that the law should give no protection because it is inconceivable that what I have described could ever arise in any single, solitary instance?

    The Minister proposes to give to a trade union power to secure the dismissal of individuals and their barring from employment. If he imagines that my inability at once to name an individual example proves that no such cases have occurred, he will no doubt try to support that case when he replies, but few members of the public will accept it.

    In Committee on the Industrial Relations Bill I referred several times to a man in my constituency who had never worked in his trade for about 30 years because he was thrown out of the union after a row with the branch secretary and then could not get a job because there were closed shops throughout the town. He has had bitter experience of the closed shop. He has complained to me many times about it, and even now he writes to remind me of his case. One case like that is quite enough to make bad law.

    I am grateful for that information. I am only sorry that my hon. Friend could not see the smiles which crossed the faces of Members on the Government side when he gave that example.

    Obviously, examples are about to flow in. It is most unfortunate that when these examples are given hon. Members opposite seem to assume that such people must have something wrong with them. They have no more knowledge of the case than I have, but their immediate reaction is to say that if a man has the temerity to quarrel with his union he is some sort of aberrant who has to be expelled from the tribe.

    In Committee I cited precisely the sort of case to which, one assumes, the Minister of State was referring, so he cannot possibly suggest that there are no such cases. I gave an instance in Committee.

    Other hon. Members have the advantage in being better prepared than I was for the Minister's temerity in suggesting that there were no such cases. However, I do not want to take much longer, since it is clear that others are anxious to speak and add their examples.

    Another equally important feature of the Bill as it stands is that power is given not only to turn out individuals but to deal with other members of independent trade unions which happen to be minority unions in an industry. This is entirely consistent with the Government's approach that in an inter-union dispute, when one union is seeking a closed shop, the Bill shall favour the strong. It favours the one which happens to have won the dominant position in order to get its union agreement. That union is then to be facilitated to secure the dismissal of members of its rival.

    No doubt the Minister will at some stage attempt a defence of his proposal. My hon. Friends have already shown what a dog's breakfast the drafting of the proposal is as it stands, making dismissal fair and unfair at the same time in certain circumstances. I suspect that the Government's intention is that the strong shall prevail and that members of minority unions should be expelled.

    Others of my hon. Friends will no doubt deal at greater length with the situation in journalism. If what the Government propose is to occur in journalism, I can think of no more dangerous prospect. Is it suggested that one union, if it secures a monopoly, shall be able to expel members of smaller unions and freelances, as the NUJ has been urging?

    Plainly, far from being a short emergency measure to get rid of the 1971 Act and go back to where we were, the Bill is a total capitulation to the most extreme demands of some sections of the trade union movement. The harm that will be done to the livelihood and employment of individuals will be incalculable if the Government continue, with majorities of one, two or three, to try to push it on to the statute book.

    9.30 p.m.

    My hon Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) touched on the effect of the Bill in journalism, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) stressed how sinister certain aspects of the Bill could be. It is particularly sinister that when this House tends to throw away its own liberties and those of the people of this country it is so often done before a practically empty bench of a Government who are proposing measures of this sort, as is now happening.

    I start by declaring an interest. For some years it has been my privilege and pride to contribute to the national Press articles on the less contentious subjects, such as the arts. As a member of a profession I am not allowed to be a member of the National Union of Journalists, proud as I would be to join that body.

    Against this background, the English Press and the freedom of the English Press have always benefited enormously from the fact that there is no closed shop in journalism.

    The Secretary of State has been associated long and distinguishedly with the Press in this country. One would have thought he would be proud of the traditions of the Press rather than seek to tear those traditions up and throw them out in a casual way. It is sad that he should be a party to something which could create a situation—if he looks at the situation as closely as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport has just invited the House to look—which he must appreciate could have the effect of destroying the basis of a free Press in this country.

    The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows that that is true. The right hon. Gentleman waves his hand in an arrogant way. I shall give way to him later. I put three points to him. The first point concerns editorial content and the position of the editor who has always previously been an associate and who now is in a position where his editorial content could be controlled by the majority union. The second point concerns the member of a minority union within a newspaper. The third point concerns the question of the freelance.

    If the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no threat to one of our basic liberties—the freedom the Press—I shall be interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

    What the hon. Gentleman has said about the threat to the freedom of the Press under this Bill is a gross exaggeration of the situation. Moreover, all his facts are wrong. He said that there was no such thing as a closed shop in the newspaper industry. I have worked on newspapers for 20 years in closed shop situations. During the whole of that period I have never heard of anything that could conceivably bear out the facts advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

    As to the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring, there is a case to be put on the other side. He is presenting one part of the facts. All his attacks on these matters are wild exaggerations. They are grotesque distortions of the facts.

    As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has used a cataract of rhetoric. None the less, he has not answered any of the questions I put to him.

    I now return to deal with a matter that I believe is sinister. It is deeply sinister to see someone who has expressed himself as long and as deeply as the right hon. Gentleman has in the past, now being willing—in a way that one can only say is quite unworthy of him—to throw away the traditions of his profession, including the tradition by which the members of his profession have always been proud of their own freedom.

    I said that I am not a member of the National Union of Journalists. I wish I could be. However, I should be very worried, if I were a member of the National Union of Journalists, or of any other Press union, if I saw what the politicians of the extreme Left are doing, in this case—meddling not only with the basic freedom of my trade but with the basic freedoms of this country.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made a general case for the amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) returned to the specific point of journalism. That is what I should like to deal with. I declare straight away an interest as a journalist and as a member of the National Union of Journalists for the last 12 years.

    First, I suggest—I also suggest it to my hon. Friends—that it is important that we should recognise the feelings of working journalists who, nationally at least, work in an industry which is, to put it at its mildest, under pressure. It is altogether understandable that there should be a feeling that professionally trained journalists should form the bulk of newspaper staff. It is altogether understandable and reasonable that they should expect, other things being equal, that the professional staff should be members of the journalists' trade unions. Indeed, it will be extremely interesting when the interests of hon. Members have to be declared to see how many hon. Members mention journalism as a major financial interest. It will be interesting to see how many of those also then declare their interests as a member of one of the journalists' trade unions. I look forward to an NUJ recruiting campaign in the House of Commons. I look forward to the Secretary of State taking on a new job as father of the chapel at Westminster.

    However, that having been said, let us also be clear about the limits to which union membership in the newspaper industry should be taken. It would be a mockery if journalists working for what they were proud to see and proud to defend as a free Press forced colleagues into union membership. The Press fights for the right to disagree. The Secretary of State, in a proud and long journalistic career, has fought for the right to disagree, and the right to disagree with Governments. The Press fights for the right to disagree with officialdom generally. That is surely the whole basis upon which newspapers operate and the basis of their freedom.

    Therefore, how ironic it would be if, because of the Bill, journalists were to be forced or dragooned into union membership. The right of journalists themselves to disagree should also be a right which is recognised in any legislation. That is one matter. But what would be even more fundamental and objectionable would be if journalists were forced into one particular trade union.

    The right hon. Gentleman said that he had worked in newspapers which operated closed shops on Fleet Street for about 20 years. I do not know of many newspapers—certainly in the NUJ or Institute of Journalists sense—which operate closed shops. The majority case is that they do not, that they do not want to operate closed shops and that they would object if that were ever forced upon them.

    As a member of the NUJ I want no part of a policy which says in effect that all journalists should join that union, because other members of the journalistic profession may have decided, because of their free will or for any number of reasons, that they prefer to be members of the Institute of Journalists. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) mentioned this matter. Why should I or the NUJ take it upon ourselves to say that members of the profession should be members of only the NUJ? I do not see why members of the Institute of Journalists should be presented with a choice of either joining the NUJ or putting their jobs in jeopardy. That is not a free choice. It is something which hon. Members and most journalists will regard as fundamentally objectionable.

    The right hon. Gentleman and his hon Friends should address themselves seriously to this question. There are very real fears among journalists and working editors about the effects of the Bill—a Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, drawn up and brought forward by a man who has been a working journalist all his life.

    The representations that I have received are the same as those which my hon. Friends have had. The West Midlands Press in my area says that the effect of the Bill
    "would result in a rapid decline in employment opportunities for members"
    of the Institute of Journalists,
    "and even a total exclusion from all but a few jobs."
    It says that a single union which had control of journalists, including editors, employed by newspapers
    "would be a serious threat to the freedom of editorial expression, which is essential in a democracy."
    That fear, which was expressed by my right hon. Friend, is shared by men like him who have spent a lifetime in journalism, and it should be taken very seriously indeed. I believe that the provisions in the Bill are not in the interests either of journalists or of the freedom of the Press.

    So far this debate has dealt largely with the position of members of the National Union of Journalists and the Institute of Journalists. Most of us have had letters from editors of our local newspapers. I have received one from the Editor of the Bolton Evening News, dealing with the point which has been covered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). What interests me is the total absence of interest among journalists in the Press Gallery.

    I did not intend to take part in this debate until my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) spoke and was challenged from the Government Front Bench on the subject of the closed shop. I felt that I really ought to speak from experience of this matter. Every time we on the Opposition side of the House talk about the tyranny of the closed shop we hear giggles and laughter from Government Members who seem to think that we on these benches have no experience whatever of industrial relations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite plain that they have not the faintest idea what they are doing. They make noises like that, but they have no idea of my background in industry in Lancashire. It is from that experience that I wish to address the House.

    I want to dilate on how strongly I feel about the question of the tyranny of the closed shop. I gave an example from my own constituency when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I should like to mention a personal experience in Wigan, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) is present. I was in industry in that town. Two shop stewards in my small engineering firm came to me one day and said that there was a non-unionist in the works and that they wanted him fired. So far as I knew, it was a union shop. The trade unions knew very well that I regarded the AEU, as it was known then, as the proper body with which to negotiate on behalf of the employees of the company. I had no idea whether there was 100 per cent. membership; I was not interested. I regarded the union as the proper negotiating body and I would have thought that anyone with any sense would have belonged to the union, but it was not my job, as I saw it, to recruit to the union.

    The situation began to look awkward when the two shop stewards insisted that that man either joined the union or got the sack. I said, "It is not my job to recruit for you. You must persuade him to join the union if you can." I said, "I will go to the wall rather than have the tyranny of that man being sacked because he might disagree with you."

    A man for whom I had a very high regard at that time, and whom I regarded as a personal friend—although he was chairman of the constituency Labour Party and I was an officer of the Conservative Association—was called Gerrard Kennan, a man for whom everyone in the town had the highest regard. He was the district organiser of the AEU. He did not press for a closed shop. The problem was resolved because we had a sensible, responsible trade union official dealing with the situation. So far as I know, the man joined the engineering union, but there was no question of my bringing undue pressure to bear. I was prepared to go to great lengths in a stand against what I regarded as tyranny.

    That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was talking about. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite to grin and pretend that it does not happen. The one instance to which I have referred in my constituency could have been tyrannical, and it would have been enough to encourage me to make sure that this sort of law was put right. I have spoken from personal experience, and that is why I have entered into this debate.

    9.45 p.m.

    The Minister of State regarded it as inconceivable that there should be any kind of tyranny or oppression, and the Secretary of State inter vened with indignation at the suggestion that any such thing could happen in the newspaper industry as a result of the action of the National Union of Journalists. I find it astonishing that those reactions should have been shown in view of the fact that in Committee upstairs I gave one illustration of the activities of the NUJ and repeated it on the Floor of the House yesterday. It is only because of the attitude shown by the Ministers that it is necessary once again to restate the facts.

    The Editor of the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette has been fined, and four senior executives of that newspaper have been expelled from the NUJ, because they insisted on putting out a paper at a time when the NUJ thought there should be a strike, in spite of the fact that the editor of the newspaper regarded it as his professional duty—as it is the duty of editors of all newspapers—above all else to bring out the newspaper, come what may. That is a case under appeal within the NUJ, but the fact that it could have happened at all illustrates even now, without a closed shop situation, how dangerous a closed shop can be and how great is the pressure that can be exerted on an editor, let alone an ordinary, humble journalist. Surely, that must be a very powerful reason for supporting this amendment.

    I would like to forestall some of the arguments put forward by the Minister when this matter was considered upstairs. He said that the provisions of the Bill in its unamended form were neutral on the issue whether one union could compel people working in a plant to join it at the expense of any other union. That is a matter upon which it is impossible to be neutral, because once one allows it to happen, as has been said, one is encouraging or at least permitting strong unions to do this. It simply will not do to pretend to be blind in the matter, and say, "I do not know, I do not care what happens, as nothing in my Bill permits it." The very fact of omission is itself an act of commission and an act of encouragement to the strong against the weak.

    Finally, the protection which the passage of this amendment would give is, I regret to say, extremely limited. That must be very disappointing for those who have set their hopes on it, but in a way it is a further argument, in that it need not frighten the Government too much. It is very limited protection, for the reason that all that would happen if this amendment were passed would be that somebody who dismissed an employee as a result of pressure from a union in this situation would have to pay compensation. But if the threat of a strike was so great, so damaging and so horrifying, that the employer was prepared to pay that compensation, and if the pressure that the union was able to assert was so strong as to make him feel it worthwhile to pay the compensation rather than keep the man on, there is nothing in the Bill, as amended—if it is amended—to stop an employer taking that view.

    The protection is therefore very narrow and limited. It is saying only that if there must be this form of oppression, this form of closed shop, at least there should be a price to pay and some kind of limited compensation for the individual who suffers. Surely that is not too much to ask in the interests of justice for the individual.

    In the light of the general tone of the remarks in the debate I am entitled to claim the right of dissent or objection, because I shall attempt to refute in total the serious allegations that have been made against the effect and intentions of the Bill. Before I do that I wish to answer the direct question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I was asked whether it could be fair and unfair in the same situation, under paragraph 7(4) and (6) of Schedule 1, for a person to be dismissed for two reasons—that is, for not being a member of a specified union and for taking part in the activities of an independent non-specified union.

    This is a most improbable situation to pose in relation to the closed shop, but it would be a question of fact for the tribunal as to what was the principal reason, since it could hardly be both, and it is on the principal reason that the tribunal must decide. I cannot conceive of that situation in a closed shop arrangement.

    I turn to the only case which has been raised in industrial terms as verification of a serious objection in respect of a par ticular union, in the position of what has been described as a weak union against a strong. I am referring to the case of the Institute of Journalists in relation to the NUJ. That is the only case that has been adduced. We have not been told of any other union which fears for its life under this provision.

    The hon. Member is quite wrong. I gave a list of unions and confederations of unions which are deeply worried about what might happen to them under these provisions.

    I retract what I said. If there is a list of other bodies I shall be glad to examine it during the course of the remaining proceedings on the Bill. But the only body which has come to me with a deputation on this matter was the Institute of Journalists. I gladly met that deputation and I listened to three main concerns which were expressed about the institute's position, namely, that it was at a disadvantage compared to independent unions under the Bill as originally drafted, and it therefore might be in difficulties in competing for membership with the NUJ within the various newspapers. It expressed concern about the fact that its corporate status, as the Bill was originally drafted, would have prevented it from being recognised as an independent trade union. It also expressed the fear that those of its members who at some time in the future, in circumstances which it suggested might come to pass, joined the NUJ would be told to write things which they would not write if it were left to their unfettered judgment.

    In the Bill we have gone as far to meet these concerns as is reasonable and possible, in the context of the way in which people join unions in this country and are represented through unions. To begin with, we made provision, by Government amendment, for the special register bodies to have the immunities of any other trade unions provided they met the trade union definition in the Bill. We removed the bar of corporate status which was also one of the matters which concerned them.

    We have included within the Bill—I invite hon. Members to read it carefully—a definition of a union membership agreement. The Bill covers the position of the Institute of Journalists. It is not the case that under that definition any union, be it large or small, is required to have a written document with its name and that of the employer upon it. That has been made clear in Committee, but I make it clear again. A union membership agreement can comprise an arrangement which has existed in industry or in service for a long time, in which one or more unions have in practice represented people employed in a single class of trade or profession. That is precisely the position of the Institute of Journalists.

    A number of members of the Institute of Journalists do exactly the same job as do members of the NUJ. In fact, some have a dual membership. Therefore, their position and that of like unions is covered by the Bill's definition of a union membership agreement.

    Whilst it is perfectly possible for more than one union to be included, the case which we are postulating is the case when a small union is excluded. The possibility of multi-union agreement which the Minister is now talking about would give no protection to the members of a smaller union in the circumstances that we have postulated. The Minister's argument is utterly irrelevant.

    The hon. Member for Rushcliffe either has not reead or does not understand the union membership agreement as defined in the Bill. The definition covers the situation in which more than one union, large or small, which in practice has held membership within an industry or service covering a grade or profession of workers can contend that that situation comprises a membership agreement. We put in the words "agreement or arrangement" to make it clear that there did not need to exist a written agreement specifying particular trade unions. The membership agreement can exist in the absence of such a document.

    Of course, we know as a matter of definition that there can be a union membership agreement covering two, three, four, five or 15 unions. That is not the point. We want the Minister to address his mind to the situation facing the smaller union. For example, let us suppose that there are two unions and the one which is much stronger than the other wants to get the membership of the smaller union into its own ranks. Why does the Minister say that the stronger union might not be able to use this provision to the effect that we have postulated? We know about the definition but what we are concerned about is the use that the stronger unions might make of these powers. We ask the Minister to address his mind to that question.

    I have no intention of avoiding the question. I shall come to it immediately if it will help Conservative Members. There are two legs to the answer. First, in the situation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has postulated the employer has to agree to create a union membership agreement which recognises only one union.

    Secondly, the existence of registration under the 1971 Act made no practical difference. Unions and employers still practise closed shop agreements.

    Legal action has rarely been taken in the past to restrain strikes carried out other than in the contemplation of furtherance of a trade dispute and action under this clause would be similarly unlikely. It is difficult in practice to distinguish strikes called for political purposes from those which are in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. There are normally elements of a trade—

    It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned:


    That the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Harrison.]

    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

    His hon. Friend quoted without giving a name, a case which was 30 years old. In his speech he expressed concern from practical experience about a case in which a person had not been put out of a job but had been persuaded, presumably with the help of an old colleague of mine, Gerry Cannon, to join the union and continue working.

    The one specific case I have been given is that of Mr. Goad. I can speak with some feeling on that because he and I shared membership of the AUEW. Mr. Goad temporarily terminated his membership on three occasions after joining the union in March 1972, not by writing to his secretary saying that he wanted to terminate membership but by falling into arrears of contributions. He then came into some difficulty, and when he was called to account by the branch he went to the Industrial Court to sort the matter out. He did not use his union appeals machinery which was open to him.

    Mr. Goad pursued his action in the Industrial Court until £50,000 in fines had been slapped on the union. It was only then that the other members of the union with whom he worked objected to his remaining with the firm.

    I believe that that is an exceptional case. I would not seek to build law upon it. It does not reflect a great deal of credit on those who seek to make allegations about the way in which we intend to operate the Bill, in respect both of its unfair dismissal procedures and its union membership agreement provisions. to produce only one name in a case that could not be reasonably held to be detrimental to an individual who did not exercise his proper rights of appeal within his union.

    The Minister said earlier that he would deal with the specific point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He has not dealt with it. He said that there were two legs to the answer, but he has not answered the question. Will he now address himself to it?

    The hon. Gentleman may not have understood, but I have answered the question by pointing out quite clearly that in the situation described it is quite possible for union membership protection to operate in respect of the smaller union. We are dealing with a limited area, that of the closed shop, an area which attracted considerable attention by the Donovan Commission. There were many paragraphs about it in the Donovan Report. The commission found that about 3¾ million out of 26 million workers worked in closed shops—that is, post and pre-entry. No Conservative Member has given figures to show how many people would operate in the situation they postulate, the single union closed shop, which is a very rare institution. Most of the areas covered by the union membership agreement under the Bill would be multiple-union situations.

    I am asked whether the provisions were included to drive trade unions into affiliation with the TUC so that they could use the provisions of the Bridlington Agreement to resolve their disputes with other unions. That was not the intention, Whatever may be my own feelings about the Bridlington Agreement and its successes, there was no intention that the provisions of the union membership agreement should favour an affiliated as against a non-affiliated union. It is suggested to us—

    The Minister says that we are speaking of a limited area, but is it really so limited? Is it not the area of the liberty of the subject? Did the hon. Gentleman satisfy the deputation which he said came to see him that they could be reassured for the future regarding the safety of their jobs and their freedom to speak and to write as they wished?

    An hon. Member opposite drew attention to the attendance in the Gallery. Journalists approached me on the matter and I replied, to journalists. Following representations by the hon. and learned Member for Southport I acceded on behalf of the Government to the Opposition's amendment to withdraw part of the relevant schedule. That was done in order to meet an objection which I was convinced had validity—that it could disadvantage people in the situation in question.

    I do not claim that the matter is now fully settled. One of the three propositions of concern put to me has not been met. That proposition was that a union could instruct its members under the Bill to write in accordance with union policy instead of according to their own unfettered judgment. That matter, I suggest, is not covered by the Bill or by the 1971 Act. I will bow to no one in my concern for the liberty of the subject.

    People who join trade unions in this country are as concerned about the liberty of the subject as any members of the Opposition. Trade unions have won considerable rights for their memberships. The majority of those unions are in shops, offices and factories where some people are members of unions and some are not. We have not reached a stage where we can claim that the majority of people who work are members of unions, and certainly we cannot claim that the majority of workers work in closed shops.

    We have not tonight had a case which in any way suggests either that the definition contained in the Bill of a union membership agreement does not accord with the proper exercise of individual union membership or that the provisions in the schedules dealing with unfair dismissal do not entitle people properly to exercise their rights. On that basis, I trust that the House will reject the amendment.

    This is an important amendment for at least two reasons, and probably for many more. It involves the liberty and freedom of the individual, and could also involve the freedom of the Press. It is remarkable that a debate of this nature has taken place without a single member from the Government back benches taking part. What would have been the situation had a Conservative Government been putting forward the sort of proposal we have been discussing? The Secretary of State would have been standing here regaling us about freedom and about the liberties and rights of the individual. I do not want to provoke Opposition Members to make speeches, but I am surprised that at least one or two hon. Members on the Government side have not expressed anxiety about what the Government are proposing.

    Division No. 78.]


    [10.14 p.m.

    Adley, RobertBowden, Andrew (Brighton, Kemptown)Cockcroft, John
    Aitken, JonathanBoyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)Braine, Sir BernardCope, John
    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)Bray, RonaldCordle, John
    Amery, Rt. Hn. JulianBrewis, JohnCormack, Patrick
    Ancram, M.Brittan, LeonCorrie, John
    Archer, JeffreyBrocklebank-Fowler, ChristopherCostain, A. P.
    Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Speithorne)Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Crouch, David
    Awdry, DanielBruce-Gardyne J.Crowder, F. P.
    Baker, KennethBryan, Sir PaulDavies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
    Balniel, Rt. Hn. LordBuchanan-Smith. Allckd'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj -Gen James
    Banks, RobertBuck, AnthonyDean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
    Barber, Rt. Hn. AnthonyBudgen, NickDeedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
    Beith, A. J.Bulmer, EsmondDixon, Piers
    Bell, RonaldBurden, F. A.Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Dodsworth, Geoffrey
    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)Carlisle, MarkDrayson, Burnaby
    Benyon, W.Carr, Rt. Hn. Robertdu Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
    Berry, Hon. AnthonyChalker. Mrs. LyndaDurant, Tony
    Biffen, JohnChannon, PaulDykes, Hugh
    Biggs-Davison, JohnChurchill, W. S.Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
    Blaker, PeterClark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)Emery, Peter
    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)Clark, William (Croydon, S.)Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
    Body, RichardClarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Elliott, Sir William
    Boscawen, Hon. RobertClegg, WalterEyre, Reginald

    I quote from one of the many letters we have received:

    "The implications of this legislation are very serious in the case of newspapers. You will understand that if one journalists' trade union is able by means of industrial pressure to secure a union membership agreement in newspaper offices it will be able to deny employment and expression to those who do not support it."

    The Minister argued that there could be more than one union membership agreement, but if one union—in this case the National Union of Journalists—is very powerful it can demand of the proprietors that it is to be the specified union for the membership union agreement. Once it has done that it can drive out everyone else. We should not tolerate the strong unions being able to dominate the weaker ones. Our amendment would help to make that impossible

    My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made it clear that he was in favour of journalists joining trade unions. However, he would not tolerate, and he did not think his profession would tolerate, a situation in which they were made to join a particular union. I believe that the Liberal Party shares our view that it would be intolerable to leave the Bill in its present form. I hope that the House will support this amendment.

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 291.

    Fairgrieve, RussellKing, Tom (Bridgwater)Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
    Farr, JohnKitson, Sir TimothyRoberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.W.)
    Fell, AnthonyKnight, Mrs. JillRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
    Fenner, Mrs. PeggyKnox, DavidRodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
    Fidler, MichaelLamont, NormanRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
    Finsberg, GeoffreyLane, DavidRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
    Fisher, Sir NigelLangford-Holt, Sir JohnRost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.E.)
    Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)Latham, Michael (Melton)Royle, Sir Anthony
    Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesLawrence, IvanSainsbury, Tim
    Fookes, Miss JanetLawson, Nigel (Blaby)St. John-Stevas, Norman
    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)Lester, Jim (Beeston)Scott-Hopkins, James
    Fox, MarcusLewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
    Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford&Stone)Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
    Freud, ClementLoveridge, JohnShelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
    Fry, PeterMacArthur, IanShersby, Michael
    Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.McCrindle, R. A.Silvester, Fred
    Gardiner, George (Reigate & Banstead)Macfarlane, NeilSims, Roger
    Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)MacGregor, JohnSinclair, Sir George
    Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. DavidMcLaren, MartinSkeet, T. H. H.
    Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian(Ch'sh' & Amsh'm)Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'm'ngton)
    Glyn, Dr. AlanMcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)Spence, John
    Goodhart, PhilipMadel, DavidSpicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)
    Goodhew, VictorMarshall, Michael (Arundel)Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
    Goodlad, A.Mather, CarolSproat, Iain
    Gorst, JohnMaude, AngusStainton, Keith
    Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)Maudling, Rt. Hn. ReginaldStanbrook, Ivor
    Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)Mawby, RayStanley, John
    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.Steel, David
    Gray, HamishMayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)
    Grieve, PercyMayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridge Wells)Stewart, Ian (Hichin)
    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)Meyer, Sir AnthonyStodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)Stokes, John
    Grist, IanMills, PeterStradling Thomas, John
    Grylls, MichaelMiscampbell, NormanTapsell, Peter
    Gurden, HaroldMitchell, David (Basingstoke)Taverne, Dick
    Hall, Sir JohnMoate, RogerTaylor, Edward M. (G'gow, C'cart)
    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.Money, ErnieTaylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Monro, HectorTebbit, Norman
    Hannam, JohnMoore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)Temple-Morris, Peter
    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)Morgan, GeraintThatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
    Harvie Anderson, Rt. Hn. MissMorgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net.H'dn S.)
    Hastings, StephenMorris, Michael (Northampton, S.)Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
    Havers, Sir MichaelMorrison, Charles (Devizes)Townsend, C. D.
    Hayhoe, BarneyMorrison, Peter (City of Chester)Trotter, Neville
    Heath, Rt. Hn. EdwardMudd, DavidTugendhat, Christopher
    Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)Neave, AireyTyler, Paul
    Heseltine, MichaelNeubert, Michaelvan Straubenzee, W. R.
    Higgins, TerenceNewon, Tony (Braintree)Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
    Holland, PhilipNott, JohnViggers, Peter
    Hooson, EmlynOnslow, CranleyWaddington, David
    Hordern, PeterOppenheim, Mrs. SallyWainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
    Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)Osborn, JohnWakeham, John
    Howell, David (Guildford)Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)Walder, David (Clitheroe)
    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)Page, John (Harrow, W.)Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
    Howels, Geraint (Cardigan)Pardoe, JohnWalker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
    Hunt, JohnParkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)Wall, Patrick
    Hurd, DouglasPattie, GeoffreyWalters, Dennis
    Hutchison, Michael ClarkPercival, IanWarren, Kenneth
    Iremonger, T. L.Peyton, Rt. Hn. JohnWeatherill, Bernard
    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Pink, R. BonnerWells, John
    James, DavidPrice, David (Eastleigh)Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
    Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dgeW'std & W'fd)Prior, Rt. Hn. JamesWiggin, Jerry
    Jessel, TobyQuennell, Miss J. M.Wlnterton, Nicholas
    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)Raison, TimothyWood, Rt. Hn. Richard
    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)Rathbone, TimWoodhouse, Hn. Christopher
    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir PeterWorsley, Sir Marcus
    Jopling, MichaelRedmond, RobertYoung, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)
    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir KeithRees-Davies, W. R.Younger, Hn. George
    Kaberry, Sir DonaldRenton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H'f gd'ns're)
    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. ElaineRenton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
    Kershaw, AnthonyRhys Williams, Sir BrandonMr. Paul Hawkins and
    Kimball, MarcusRidsdale, JulianMr. Spencer Le Marchant.
    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


    Abse, LeoBarnet, Guy (Greenwich)Blenkinsop, Arthur
    Allaun, FrankBarnett, Joel (Hey wood & Royton)Boardman, H.
    Archer, PeterBates, AlfBooth, Albert
    Armstrong, ErnestBaxter, WilliamBoothroyd, Miss Betty
    Ashton, JoeBenn, Rt. Hn. Anthony WedgwoodBottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
    Atkins, RonaldBennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
    Atkinson, NormanBidwell, SydneyBradley, Tom
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Bishop, E. S.Broughton, Sir Alfred

    Brown, Bob (Newcastle upon Tyne, W.)Hamling, WilliamNewens, Stanley (Harlow)
    Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)Hardy, PeterOakes, Gordon
    Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. & Sh'ditch)Harper, JosephOgden, Eric
    Buchan, NormanHarrison, Walter (Wakefield)O'Halloran, Michael
    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn)Hart, Rt. Hn. JudithO'Malley, Brian
    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)Hatton, FrankOrbach, Maurice
    Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)Healey, Rt. Hn. DenisOvenden, John
    Campbell, IanHeffer, Eric S.Owen, Dr. David
    Cant, R. B.Hooley, FrankPadley, Walter
    Carmichael, NeilHoram, JohnPalmer, Arthur
    Carter, RayHowell, Denis ((B'ham, Small Heath)Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
    Carter-Jones, LewisHuckfield, LeslieParker, John (Dagenham)
    Castle, Rt. Hn. BarbaraHughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)Parry, Robert
    Clemitson, IvorHughes, Mark (Durham)Pavitt, Laurie
    Cocks, MichaelHughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)Pendry, Tom
    Cohen, StanleyHughes, Roy (Newport)Perry, Ernest G.
    Coleman, DonaldHunter, AdamPhipps, Dr. Colin
    Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I. Edgehill)Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
    Conlan, BernardIrving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)Prescott, John
    Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)Jackson, ColinPrice, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
    Cox, ThomasJanner, GrevillePrice, William (Rugby)
    Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)Jay, Rt Hn. DouglasRadice, Giles
    Crawshaw, RichardJeger, Mrs. LenaReid, George
    Cronin, JohnJenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)Richardson, Miss Jo
    Crosland, Rt. Hn. AnthonyJenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
    Cryer, G. R.John, BrynmorRoberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
    Cunningham, G.(Isl'ngt'n, S & F's' b'ry)Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)Robertson, John (Paisley)
    Cunningham, Dr John A.(Whiteh'v'n)Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)Roderick, Caerwyn E.
    Dalyell, TamJones, Dan (Burnley)Rodgers, George (Chorley)
    Davidson, ArthurJones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
    Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Rooker, J. W.
    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Judd, FrankRoper, John
    Davies, Ifor (Gower)Kelley, RichardRose, Paul B.
    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)Kerr, RussellRoss, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
    Deakins, EricKilroy-Silk, RobertRowlands, Edward
    Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)Kinnock, NeilSandelson, Neville
    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir GeoffreyLambie, DavidSedgemore, Bryan
    Delargy, HughLamborn, HarrySelby, Harry
    Dell, Rt. Hn. EdmundLamond, JamesShaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
    Dempsey, JamesLatham, Arthur(City of W'minster P'ton)Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
    Doig, PeterLawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (S'pney & P'plar)
    Dormand, J. D.Leadbitter, TedShort, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
    Douglas-Mann, BruceLee, JohnShort, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
    Duffy, A. E. P.Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
    Dunnett, JackLever, Rt. Hn. HaroldSilkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark, Dulwich)
    Dunwoody, Mrs. GwynethLewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)Sillars, James
    Edelman, MauriceLewis, Ron (Carlisle)Silverman, Julius
    Edge, GeoffLipton, MarcusSkinner, Dennis
    Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)Lomas, KennethSmall, William
    Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)Loughlin, CharlesSmith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)Loyden, EddieSnape, Peter
    English, MichaelLyon, Alexander W. (York)Spearing, Nigel
    Ennals, DavidLyons, Edward (Bradlord, W.)Spriggs, Leslie
    Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)McCartney, HughStallard, A. W.
    Evans, Ioan (Aberdeen)MacCormack, IainStewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fuh'm)
    Evans, John Newton)McElhone, FrankStoddart, David (Swindon)
    Ewlng, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)
    Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray & Nairn)MacFarquhar, RoderickStonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
    Faulds, AndrewMcGuire, MichaelStott, Roger
    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.Mackenzie, GregorStrang, Gavin
    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)Maclennan, RobertStrauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
    Flannery, MartinMcNamara, KevinSwain, Thomas
    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)Madden, M. O. F.Thomas, D E. (Merioneth)
    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)Magee, BryanThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
    Foot, Rt. Hn. MichaelMahon, SimonThorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
    Ford, BenMallalieu, J. P. W.Tlerney, Sydney
    Forrester, JohnMarks, KennethTinn, James
    Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)Marquand, DavidTomlinson, John
    Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)Tomney, Frank
    Freeson, ReginaldMeacher, MichaelTorney, Tom
    Galpern, Sir MyerMellish, Rt. Hn. RobertTuck, Raphael
    Garrelt, John (Norwich, S.)Mendelson, JohnUrwin, T. W.
    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Mikardo, IanVarley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
    George, BruceMillan, BruceWainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
    Gilbert, Dr. JohnMiller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
    Ginsburg, DavidMitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
    Golding, JohnMolloy, WilliamWalker, Terry (Kingswood)
    Gourlay, HarryMoonman, EricWatklns, David
    Graham, TedMorris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)Watt, Hamish
    Grant, George (Morpeth)Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Weitzman, David
    Grant, John (Islington, C.)Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)Wellbeloved, James
    Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)Moyle, RolandWhite, James
    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)Mulley, Rt. Hn. FrederickWhitehead, Phillip
    Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)Murray, Ronald KingWhitlock, William

    Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)Wrigglesworth, Ian
    Willey, Rt. Hn. FrederickWilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)Young, David (Bolton, E.)
    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
    Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)TELLERS FOR THE NOES
    Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd & St'ge)Wise, Mrs. AudreyMr. James A. Dunn and
    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)Woof, RobertMr. Walter Johnson.

    The numbers being equal

    I now have the novel duty of exercising a casting vote. Fortunately or not, I have to do it entirely according to precedent. I must vote for the Bill as it came from Committee. For a change in the Bill, there must be a substantive majority. I therefore cast my vote against the amendment.

    Question accordingly negatived.