§ Mr. Harold WalkerI beg to move, Amendment No. 758: In page 30, line 2, leave out 'Industrial Court' and insert 'Commission on Industrial Relations'.
We have already covered the arguments behind this Amendment and in order to make progress I propose that we do not debate it but record our position.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 298.
| Division No. 132.] | AYES | [7.48 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Drayson, G. B. | Jessel, Toby |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Dykes, Hugh | Jopling, Michael |
| Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) | Eden, Sir John | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith |
| Astor, John | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Kellett, Mrs. Elaine |
| Awdry, Daniel | Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Kilfedder, James |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Emery, Peter | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Eyre, Reginald | King, Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Balniel, Lord | Farr, John | Kinsey, J. R |
| Batsford, Brian | Fell, Anthony | Kirk, Peter |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Kitson, Timothy |
| Bell, Ronald | Fidler, Michael | Knox, David |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Lambton, Antony |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Lane, David |
| Benyon, W. | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Langford-Holt, Sir John |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Fookes, Miss Janet | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Bitten, John | Fortescue, Tim | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Foster, Sir John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Blaker, Peter | Fowler, Norman | Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Fox, Marcus | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langseone) |
| Body, Richard | Fry, Peter | Longden, Gilbert |
| Boscawen, Robert | Galbraith, Hn. T. C. | Loveridge, John |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Gardner, Edward | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Bowden, Andrew | Gibson-Watt, David | MacArthur, Ian |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | McCrindle, R. A. |
| Braine, Bernard | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | McLaren, Martin |
| Bray, Ronald | Glyn, Dr. Alan | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy |
| Brewis, John | Goodhart, Philip | McMaster, Stanley |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Goodhew, Victor | Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Gorst, John | McNair-Wilson, Michael |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Gower, Raymond | McNair-WEilson, Patrick (NewForest) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Maddan, Martin |
| Bryan, Paul | Gray, Hamish | Madel, David |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Green, Alan | Maginnis, John E. |
| Buck, Antony | Grieve, Percy | Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Marten, Neil |
| Burden, F. A. | Grylls, Michael | Mather, Carol |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Gummer, Selwyn | Maude, Angus |
| Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) | Gurden, Harold | Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald |
| Carlisle, Mark | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Mawby, Ray |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Channon, Paul | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hannan, John (Exeter) | Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) |
| Chataway, Rty. Hn. Christopher | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Mitchell,Lt.Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) |
| Churchill, W. S. | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Haselhurst, Alan | Moate, Roger |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Hastings, Stephen | Molyneaux, James |
| Clegg, Walter | Havers, Michael | Money, Ernie |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hawkins, Paul | Monks, Mrs. Connie |
| Cooke, Robert | Hayhoe, Barney | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Coombs, Derek | Heseltine, Michael | More, Jasper |
| Cooper, A. E. | Hicks, Robert | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) |
| Cordie, John | Hiley, Joseph | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. |
| Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Mudd, David |
| Costain, A. P. | Holland, Philip | Murton, Oscar |
| Critchley, Julian | Holt, Miss Mary | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Crouch, David | Hooson, Emlyn | Neave, Airey |
| Crowder, F. P. | Hordern, Peter | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Curran, Charles | Hornby, Richard | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Normanton, Tom |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) | Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) | Nott, John |
| d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry | Howell, David (Guildford) | Onslow, Cranley |
| d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally |
| Dean, Paul | Hunt, John | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Osborn, John |
| Dixon, Piers | Iremonger, T. L. | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | James, David | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Pardoe, John | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) | Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Peel, John | Scott, Nicholas | Tilney, John |
| Percival, Ian | Scott-Hopkins, James | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Peyton, Rt. Hn. John | Sharples, Richard | Trew, Peter |
| Pike, Miss Mervyn | Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgh & Whitby) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Pink, R. Bonner | Shelton, Will:am (Clapham) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Pounder, Rafton | Simeons, Charles | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Skeet, T. H. H. | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Price, David (Eastfeigh) | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) | Waddington, David |
| Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. | Soref, Harold | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Proudfoot, Wilfred | Speed, Keith | Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) |
| Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | Spence, John | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Quennell, Miss J. M. | Sproat, Iain | Wall, Patrick |
| Raison, Timothy | Stainton, Keith | Walters, Dennis |
| Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Stanhrook, Ivor | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Redmond, Robert | Steel, David | Warren, Kenneth |
| Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) | Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Rees, Peter (Dover) | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Stokes, John | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David | Stuttaford, Dr. Tom | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Sutcliffe, John | Wilkinson, John |
| Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | Tapsell, Peter | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Ridsdale, Julian | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Robert, Michael (Cardiff, N.) | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Rost, Peter | Tebbit, Norman | |
| Royle, Anthony | Temple, John M. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Russell, Sir Ronald | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret | Mr. Hector Monro and |
| Mr. Bernard Weatherill. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Horam, John |
| Albu, Austen | Deakins, Eric | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) |
| Allen, Scholefield | Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Huckfieid, Leslie |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Dempsey, James | Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Ashley, Jack | Doig, Peter | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Ashton, Joe | Dormand, J. D. | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Hunter, Adam |
| Barnes, Michael | Driberg, Tom | Irving,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) |
| Barnett, Joel | Duffy, A. E. P. | Janner, Greville |
| Beaney, Alan | Dunnett, Jack | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Eadie, Alex | Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'h'n&St.P'cras,S.) |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Edelman, Maurice | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | John, Brynmor |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Ellis, Tom | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Booth, Albert | English, Michael | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) |
| Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) | Evans, Fred | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) |
| Bradley, Tom | Fernyhough, E. | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) | Jones,Rt.HnSirElwyn(W.Ham,S.) |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) |
| Buchan, Norman | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Judd, Frank |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Foley, Maurice | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Foot, Michael | Kelley, Richard |
| Campbell, I. (Dunhartonshire, W.) | Ford, Ben | Kinnock, Neil |
| Cant, R. B. | Forrester, John | Lambie, David |
| Carmichael, Neil | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Lamond, James |
| Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Freeson, Reginald | Latham, Arthur |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) | Galpern, Sir Myer | Lawson, George |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Garrett, W. E. | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Gilbert, Dr. John | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Ginsburg, David | Leonard, Dick |
| Cohen, Stanley | Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Coleman, Donald | Gourlay, Harry | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold |
| Concannon, J. D. | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Lewis, Arthur (W, Ham, N.) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | ||
| Cronin, John | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Loughlin, Charles |
| Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whltehaven) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Hardy, Peter | Mabon, Dr. J Dickson |
| Davidson, Arthu | Harper, Joseph | McBride, Neil |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | McCartney, Hugh |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | McElhone, Frank |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Heffer, Eric S. | McGuire, Michael |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Hilton, W. S. | MacKenzie, Gregor |
| Mackie, John | Pavitt, Laurie | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Pendry, Tom | Strang, Gavin |
| MacPherson, Malcolm | Pentland, Norman | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. F. |
| Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Perry, Ernest G. | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. | Swain, Thomas |
| Marks, Kenneth | Prescott, John | Taverns, Dick |
| Marquand, David | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) | Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) |
| Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | Price, William (Rugby) | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Probert, Arthur | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) |
| Mayhew, Christopher | Rankin, John | Tinn, James |
| Meacher, Michael | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) | Tomney, Frank |
| Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) | Torney, Tom |
| Mendelson, John | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Tuck, Raphael |
| Mikardo, Ian | Richard, Ivor | Urwin, T. W. |
| Millan, Bruce | Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) | Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) |
| Molloy, William | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Roper, John | Wallace, George |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rose, Paul B. | Watkins, David |
| Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) | Weitzman, David |
| Moyle, Roland | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) | Wells, William Walsall,N.) |
| Murray, Ronald King | Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Ogden, Eric | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Whitlock, William |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| O'Malley, Brian | Sillars, James | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Oram, Bert | Silverman, Julius | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Orbach, Maurice | Skinner, Dennis | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Orme, Stanley | Small, William | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Oswald, Thomas | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) | |
| Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) | Spearing, Nigel | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Palmer, Arthur | Stallard, A. W. | Mr. John Golding and |
| Parker, John (Dagenham) | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) | Mr. Ernest Armstrong. |
| Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
§ [For Division list 133 see col. 448.]
§ Mrs. CastleI beg to move Amendment No. 726:
In page 30, line 4, at end insert 'or oroganisations of workers'.
The Temporary ChairmanIt will be convenient for the Committee to take also Amendment No. 727, in page 30, line 7, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 728, in page 30, line 14, after 'union', insert 'or any organisation of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 729, in page 30, line 17, at end insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 730, in page 30, line 19, after 'unions', insert 'or any organisations of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 73, in page 34, line 23, at end insert 'or organisation of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 734, in page 34, line 24, after 'unions', insert 'or organisation of workers'.
§ Amendment No. 750, in Clause 52, page 41, line 8, at end insert 'organisation of workers, or'.
§ Amendment No. 751, in page 41, line 10, after 'union', insert 'or organisation of workers'.
§ Mrs. CastleHaving discussed the principle of the Government's new machinery, we come in this Clause and subsequent Clauses to examine its details. The first question we must ask is who will be entitled to take advantage of this elaborate provision for the establishment of bargaining units and bargaining agents. In this group of Amendments we are dealing with a principle which runs through the Bill, namely, that unless a trade union registers under the 375 iniquitous provisions of the Bill it shall be denied the right to operate as a trade union at all. We shall have a lot to say about this as we go through different parts of the Bill and come up against different manifestations of this principle, but in this group of Amendments we are dealing with two particularly mean and damaging facets to good industrial relations.
The first is the denial expressed throughout the Clause of the right of an unregistered union to make an application for recognition for bargaining purposes. Just as an unregistered trade union was denied any rights under the agency shop provision, so an unregistered trade union is denied any rights under the concept of the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent.
The second facet is the denial of the right under Clause 52(5) of an unregistered trade union to have access to the information from the employer which in future the law will provide because the Bill admits that such information is necessary for negotiation. Therefore, what happens in Clause 52 is that if a union is unregistered it will not be entitled to the information without which—and I quote Clause 52(1)—
the trade union representative would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining …The Government's intention is that any union which on grounds of principle refuses to register on the present Government's terms will not only in future forfeit the traditional protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act, but will be totally outside the pale of collective bargaining.That this is the Government's intention is made quite clear in the Consultative Document, and the Bill has faithfully reflected the intention of that document in these Clauses. In paragraph 131 of the Consultative Document the explanation of this bargaining machinery is expressed as follows:
The Government proposes to provide that any registered trade union, any employer or registered employers' association … could make a claim to the National Industrial Relations Court to have any dispute over a trade union's claim for recognition, or over bargaining structure, examined by the C.I.R."—I emphasise "any registered trade union", and no other.376 The Consultative Document says in paragraph 134:
The 'bargaining agent' would be the registered union, or the joint negotiating panel of registered unions, which should have sole negotiating right for all employees within a bargaining unit.When we study these words we realise the totality of the exclusion of any union which under the Bill is ostensibly given the right to decide not to register. The Government say that if a union wants legal protection it can register, but here they are going much further. As a result of these Clauses unregistered unions for bargaining purposes in innumerable situations would cease to exist. They would vanish into thin air so far as the Government are concerned.This is a devastating new principle which goes far beyond anything contemplated in Donovan. The Donovan Report has been quoted by the Government ad nauseam and always selectively. The Government have even prayed in aid the Donovan Report in respect of the registration proposals which we shall be discussing in the next part of the Bill. In fact, we shall be discussing them tomorrow and will examine in detail the sort of insults and indecencies the trade unions have to swallow in order to be registered.
I am concerned with the nature of the penal clauses for a union which says that it does not want to register. What are the sanctions against such a union? They will not be legal sanctions in the sense—
§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)The right hon. Gentleman knows that a trader who is required to register under the business names legislation is subjected to certain disabilities in the event of certain kinds of proceedings. Has the right hon. Lady ever considered that kind of requirement to be unreasonable?
§ Mrs. CastleIt depends first on the nature of the disabilities, and secondly on the purposes which are to be achieved. We have been told that the Government are trying to achieve the better regulation of industrial relations. The only disability Donovan ever suggested was withdrawal of immunity under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. Donovan said that in a particular context. That was in the context of conditions of registration which 377 in Donovan's words, were to be no more onerous and certainly no more restrictive than the present ones under the 1871 Act. Donovan made clear that he foresaw no difficulties under his conditions for any existing union which is registered to remain on the register, but in withdrawing the immunity of Section 3 of the 1906 Act—with which we on this side never agreed, as is made clear in "In Place of Strife"—Donovan was thinking of temporary unofficial combinations. Donovan makes this quite clear in paragraph 794 in which it visualises how easy it is for anybody to register and the report later examines whether it is right for unofficial groups to have the protection of Section 3 of that Act.
I do not agree with the conclusions of Donovan in regard to withdrawal of that immunity. I am quoting it to show that there is no suggestion in Donovan that if a union refused to register—and the conditions of registration in this Bill are far more far-reaching than anything visualised in the Donovan Report—it would from thenceforth cease to exist in bargaining terms. Therefore we have a principle adopted here whereby the Government say to great trade unions, many of which are now facing great decisions of principle—and I would stress to the Government how important it is for them to take seriously the debate now going on in these unions as to whether as a matter of principle they can consider registering— "Not only will you lose the immunity of Section 3, but you will have no bargaining rights whatsoever, for they will just not be there". It will be purely for the good boys who have signed on their dotted line to be considered to have first and foremost right to make application to go through this machinery and all these gateways, to get "vetted" and ballotted for and therefore finally approved as a bargain agent. If any group of unions one of which, on principle, has said it does not want to register puts forward an application under this it will be ruled out, because only a joint panel of registered unions will be eligible.
§ Mr. OrmeMy right hon. Friend's argument on this principle would apply to my own A.E.W.U. which has already taken a conference decision in regard to registration. But also, is not it rather strange that the words which my right 378 hon. Friend is seeking to insert are found in every other part of the Bill where they want to catch the unions for unfair industrial practice, but where it is going to operate in this respect those words are deliberately left out, showing the bias there is in this matter?
§ Mrs. CastleMy hon. Friend is right, but the time for us to elaborate on that in greater detail is tomorrow when we are discussing registration. Then we shall be able to draw together the total picture. I am trying to keep myself within the confines of the Clauses covered by these Amendments, Nos. 42, 46 and 56 broadly, where we seek to have these words inserted. There may be others where we should have done so, but this principle runs through my group of Amendments. With regard to the union's right to receive information from an employer in order to be able to bargain effectively, I believe the Donovan Commission would be absolutely horrified at this attempt to dragoon proud unions into swallowing their principles in this way.
I want to repeat the warning I was giving to right hon. Gentlemen. Many unions are now faced with this decision; and this kind of treatment of the unregistered union is going to make it more likely they will decide not to register, not less likely. There comes a point when the provocation is so great that a man, an institution or a group of people, can only keep their innate pride and dignity by saying, "To hell with you". The Government, in Clauses like this, are provoking otherwise deeply responsible unions into that attitude of mind. This is made all the worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend has just referred, the different treatment in regard to the penalties falling on the organisation. Organisations of workers do not get any plums. It is made worse by the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred earlier in the debate between the use of the terms "trade union" and "organisation" in this very Clause.
Why is it, for example, that under subsection (1) of this Clause only a trade union or trade unions are entitled to make application for recognition as sole bargaining agent or as a member of a joint negotiating panel whereas in subsection (3) an employer can make an 379 application for an organisation of workers to be so recognised? We have had no explanation of this discrepancy. The view was expressed by my hon. Friends behind me that this is a clear gateway for an employer to push forward a house union or a company union for recognition as the sole bargaining agent. I say to the Solicitor-General advisedly that no other interpretation can be placed on this discrepancy. How did it slip in? He has said that that is not the intention. This is a very detailed Bill. It has been drafted with considerable consciousness of intention on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have not liked their intentions but we have to admit that they have expressed them very clearly.
I do not believe the Solicitor-General was having a nap when the draftsmen slipped the term "organisation of workers" into subsection (3) instead of the term "trade union" which we have in subsection (1). There was a reason for having that, and it has an effect; because the term "organisation of workers" in Clause 57 of this Bill is not defined in a way that would exclude a house or company union. The Solicitor-General has said that by "organisation of workers" is meant an independent unregistered trade union. He said an organisation of workers is an independent body, it is not a house union.
Certainly, when we insert the words "organisation of workers" we mean an independent trade union which has decided not to register. That is why we have tabled an Amendment which we will be discussing when we come to Clause 57 to amend the definition of "organisation of workers" in that Clause; because at the moment it does not subsume the word "independent". The Solicitor-General says if only we will turn to the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, we will see that our fears here are misplaced. I believe I quote him aright when he referred us to the definition of independence given in that interpretation Clause. It reads:
'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer", etc.But that is not the same as saying that throughout the Bill wherever the phrase 380 "organisation of workers" is used, by definition it means that that body is independent.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThere are real questions to be debated here, and I do not want to mislead the right hon. Lady or the Committee on any aspect. "Organisation of workers" is defined in Clause 57, and does not have to be independent. A trade union, as defined in Clause 57, is one that is registered, and a registered trade union—in other words, a registered organisation of workers—has to be independent, in the words in which the right hon. Lady has described it.
The right hon. Lady is right in her premise that "organisation of workers" means an unregistered organisation which need not, by definition, be independent. Trade union means registered, which must be independent. I am not to be taken as conceding the rest of the right hon. Lady's case. The point is that it is only a registered union which can secure recognition enforceable against an employer.
§ Mrs. CastleI am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his honesty, because when the point was raised earlier by my hon. Friends that subsection (3) meant that an employer could put forward a non-independent organisation of workers for acceptance as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, right hon. and learned Gentlemen gave us the impression that that was not so. He is now saying that it is so, that my intepretation of the subsection is correct. The Solicitor-General may go on to say that that is not the Government's intention. If that is his answer, the remedy is clear. It is to put the word "independent" before "organisation of workers", as has been done in another Clause.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI apologise to the right hon. Lady for interrupting again. That is not our intention, and we believe that we have fulfilled our intention, because this is really designed to enable an employer to go through the machinery of the C.I.R. if an unregistered organisation is seeking recognition. It is not designed to enable him to go there to get a tame house union certified by the C.I.R., and what I said on that point is that the C.I.R., consistent with the standards which it has enunciated in its First General Report, 381 will not put forward for establishment through statutory machinery a non-independent union. But if that were to happen and an independent union were claiming to be recognised instead, it could make its own claim under Clause 42, so that the effect is in line with the intention. I do not want to mislead the Committee, and if the Committee is anxious about it we can consider the way in which it is put forward, but I want to be on common ground about what the words mean.
§ Mrs. CastleI am grateful to the Solicitor-General for making clear that my analysis of the Clause as it stands is correct. My analysis is under subsection (3) it would be feasible and possible for an employer to put forward a house union to the C.I.R. and the Government's only defence to what is an outrageous proposition, as I think the Committee will agree, is that the C.I.R. in its annual report has made it clear that it will always choose an independent union.
Which C.I.R.? Not the C.I.R. that we have now. Not the C.I.R. with Will Paynter and Alf Allen on it. Not the C.I.R. set up to be an independent voluntary body, operating a voluntary policy. It is a C.I.R. which has become emasculated because the trade union members refuse to be the creatures of the Government's Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman is finding great difficulty in getting to serve on that Committee anybody who would have the confidence of the trade union movement. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and therefore it is no assurance to anybody to say that the C.I.R. will be the long-stop.
What is the Government's intention? Do they want employers to be free to put forward house unions, tame unions, captive unions? Coupled with that there is the fact that under the Clause as it stands, if strong, established unions refuse to register they will not be allowed to apply or to be considered. The only conclusion that one can draw about the Government's attitude to industrial relations is that they are out to debase and humble proud established trade unions, while giving opportunities for the promotion of tame house and company unions, unless the right hon. Gentleman amends either the definition of "organisation of workers" in Clause 57, or puts the word "independent" in subsection (3) of the 382 Clause, as he has in Clause 63 where he wants to make it clear that he is talking about an independent organisation. I think I am right in saying that it is Clause 63 which says:
any organisation which—(a) is an independent organisation of workers".So where the Government want to make clear that they are talking about independent organisations of workers they put the word in. Will they put the word in to establish their intention; will they insert "organisation of workers" or "independent organisation of workers" at the points of the Clause to which our Amendments refer and in the subsequent Clauses to which our Amendments refer.We shall have a later Amendment to define "organisation of workers" as always being independent. The right hon. Gentleman can either accept the later Amendment or he can put "independent" in front of "organisation" throughout the Clause.
I ask the Committee to take these two points very seriously. I do not believe that the Government can claim that they are trying to reform industrial relations or introduce greater stability unless they make these two vital Amendments for which we are pressing.
§ Mr. R. CarrIt might assist the Committee if I give at least a quick interim reply now. I must reply "No" to both the questions which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked.
As the right hon. Lady said, these Amendments raise the whole question of registration and the principle behind it. We shall be discussing the details of that tomorrow and it would not be proper for me to go into them now. However, I think that it is proper to mention the principle.
It is a basic principle of the Bill that privileges and rights should attach to registered unions—registered organisations of workers—over and above those which attach to non-registered ones. That is for better or worse a clear principle of the Bill and it is at the heart of what we are putting forward.
The right hon. Lady talked about the principle in rather emotive language. She talked about dragooning proud unions 383 into registraton. At the end of her speech the right hon. Lady talked about our being out to debase and humble proud unions by asking them to register if they wanted certain rights and privileges.
What about the public? Are we to debase and humble the public? The right hon. Lady said that the unions would say, "To hell with you". She was not referring to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, but to me. Are we to say to the public, "To hell with you"?
§ Mr. CarrThe public are the 50 million people of this country. They include about ten million trade unionists and their families, but they are the whole of the people. What we say, and what we believe that it is right to say, is that if unions claim, as they do, and rightly do, to exercise very great influence and very great power in our community, both economically and socially—they claim it; they should claim it; we make no complaint about it—it is not unreasonable that they should comply with certain minimum standards and register so as to achieve that power, that status and those special rights and special privileges. We admit that they should have those special rights and privileges, but we believe that the public as a whole—the 60 million of us—have a right to say to any trade union or to any other organisation—
§ Mr. Arthur LewisIt is 60 million now. A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that it was 50 million.
§ Mr. Carr—of people in this country, whether they be trade unions, doctors, architects, traders or any section one likes to mention, "If you claim to exercise power in our community, you should comply with certain minimum standards". That is the basic principle of registration. It is the basic principle of the Bill. I should be very surprised if that principle did not have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of people, including trade unionists.
There is nothing oppressive in the conditions for registration which we lay down and which have to be fulfilled. This is not dragooning proud trade unions. It is not debasing or humbling them. It is asking proud unions which were once 384 very weak but which are now strong to accept the responsibilities and duties in relation to the rest of the community which the community has the right to expect and which every other sector of the community has laid upon it. That is the basis of registration, and we had better get it clear before we start. We can discuss the details of it tomorrow.
The principle of registration was accepted by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon Lady the Member for Blackburn. The details, which I agree are very important, are different. We are not talking about the details now. We are talking about the principle of registration. If our conditions for registration are wrong, that is an argument which we can have tomorrow. What we are now saying—and surely it should be possible for the two sides of the Committee to agree about it since it was recommended by the Donovan Commission and by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn when she was in my position—is that registration should be a pre-condition of achieving trade union status. The form and conditions of registration are matters for important argument. We are now discussing the principle of registration as a pre-condition to achieving trade union status and all that goes with it. A principle of our Bill is that registration should be the means of obtaining certain important rights and privileges.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn talked about the provisions in Clause 42 clearing a gateway for employers to push forward a house union. That is nonsense. The whole burden of the right hon. Lady's argument—and I am sure that she is more rational than her argument made her out to be—concerned the great disability attaching to non-registration. She says that by confining these rights—in the last debate they were "evil powers", but now they are "rights"—to registered bodies we are unfairly placing a disability on non-registered bodies. That is a point of view. But, by definition, the house union, which she is afraid of and which she says we are clearing a gateway for, must remain non-registered because it can acquire registration and the rights which go with it only if it can satisfy the registrar that it is not employer-dominated.
If an employer puts forward an unregistered union under this procedure, as 385 I agree an employer could do, what is the good of the C.I.R. recommending it? The complaint in this Amendment is that an unregistered body will get no benefit from that process. But the house union must, by definition, remain unregistered. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that the Clause advances the employer-dominated house union. It benefits registered unions. That is what the Amendment complains about, because the Clause gives benefit to registered unions which is denied to unregistered unions. If one says that it gives benefits to registered unions which are denied to unregistered unions, one cannot say that it is promoting house unions which, by definition, must remain unregistered.
§ [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. OrmeIf, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are no benefits at the end of the day, why does he allow them to be referred to the Industrial Court in the first place? Second, will he tell the Committee why employers have a right to refer any trade union in this regard? This is a matter for trade unions. The Government are now bringing in another party that can interfere with the freedom and basic right of a trade union. Why have they given the employer this right, so that he can differentiate between one class of union and another?
§ Mr. CarrAs I have already explained, it is because we believe, as a matter of principle, that certain benefits and rights should accrue to registered unions. If an employer is faced with an unregistered body seeking to obtain negotiating rights in competition with a registered union—
§ Mr. CarrIt is no good the hon. Member sitting there muttering, "Smash the unions". We are talking about an employer faced with an unregistered body, probably in competition with a registered union, and the employer wanting to resolve the conflict caused by this intrusion by an unregistered body. We properly give that employer the right to go through this procedure and to say to the C.I.R., "We believe that we have a recognition problem here which needs your help to resolve, because we have been unable to resolve it through all the normal 386 channels." The employer would go to the C.I.R. in this case not to obtain a blessing on an unregistered union but to try to persuade the C.I.R. to give their support to the registered body with which he wants to negotiate and to deal with the unregistered intruder which is causing the trouble. That is the purpose.
True, the employer could also ask for a house union to be considered, as the right hon. Lady said. But, as I have said before, what would be the purpose of this? Whatever the C.I.R. might advise, it is most unlikely that it would recommend a dominated house union for recognition, but even if it were mad enough to do so, what would be the purpose? All the legal privileges which come in this Clause attach only to registered unions and, therefore, could not attach to the employer-dominated house union, which has been raised as a bogey.
§ Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North)Accepting for the sake of argument that all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, what have the Government to lose if they accede to the Amendments? What have they to lose by accepting the case pressed from this side of the Committee?
§ Mr. CarrWe want to preserve the position which I have just mentioned, about the employer who is having trouble with recognition. Also, we believe that registered unions should have privileges and rights above unregistered unions. It is not true to say, as the right hon. Lady said earlier—
§ Mr. MoyleThe right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was talking about the specific case in which an employer would take a house union to the C.I.R. I understand that he is arguing that the house union would in any case be ineffectual because of the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, why on earth does he not concede the case argued by this side of the Committee, because there is nothing between us?
§ Mr. CarrI maintain that it is unnecessary to add anything, because since the privileges attaching to this Clause can apply only to the registered unions, they cannot, by definition, apply to the employer-dominated house unions. My only objection is that this Amendment, clearly, is not necessary. By definition, it is ruled out, because the employer-dominated union which hon. Gentlemen 387 opposite rightly do not wish to see encouraged could not achieve registration and therefore would not benefit under the Clause. That is the basic answer.
§ Mrs. CastleThe language throughout this group of Clauses is totally arbitrary and confusing. One Clause refers to "trade union". Another refers to "organisation of workers". Let me refer the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 45(3), where a question has been referred to the Commission about bargaining rights and the Commission has examined the case and transmitted a report. The Clause says in subsection (3):
A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers … as sole bargaining agent … unless it appears to the Commission … that this would be in accordance with the general wishes of the employees …".There is an clear indication that the Commission can and might recommend an organisation of workers. All that it has to do is satisfy itself that, for example, the employees of a bank want the bank's house union and not the Union of Bank Employees.It is true that only a trade union can make application to the Industrial Court for an order enforcing it where a trade union has been nominated. But an employer can apply to the court. Therefore, I suggest that for some inexplicable reason the right hon. Gentleman is dodging from one phrase to another. In one Clause it is "trade union" and in another, "organisation of workers". For clarity of drafting, we should have consistency.
§ Mr. CarrThe right hon. Lady is missing the point. We believe that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that that is put to the test and found to be the wish—
§ Mrs. Castle rose—
§ Mr. CarrThe right hon. Lady must be patient and allow me to finish my sentence. We believe that the C.I.R. should be able to recommend an unregistered organisation, provided that it is put to the test and discovered to be the wish of the majority of the workers.
388 Let us suppose that that has happened. To achieve the legal sanctification, potency and benefit that the Clause confers, that unregistered body would have to become registered. If it remained unregistered, it would not have the benefit, protection and status provided by the Clause. If that unregistered body were an employer-dominated house union, it would not be able to achieve registration and, therefore, would not be able to achieve the sanctification of the Clause.
§ Mr. HefferBut it does not have to be registered. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own language.
§ Mr. HefferClause 45(2)(c) refers to
… every trade union or other organisation of workers …".It does not go on:… which under the terms of this Section will then become a trade union.
§ Mr. CarrIf the hon. Gentleman turns to Clause 46, he will discover that in order to be given the power, validity and legal status conferred by this Clause, it has to be a registered trade union. That is the whole point. In so far as the Clause is held to confer benefits, they should be benefits only for a registered trade union.
The right hon. Lady began her speech by saying that an unregistered body is not to have any bargaining rights. That is nonsense. I must remind the Committee of what I said in replying to the debate on Clause 41. Here, we are dealing only with the safety net procedure. It is a procedure for catching the cases which fall through the net of normal industrial relations procedures. Of course, unregistered organisations of workers can always bargain.
We are saying that unregistered organisations shall not have new statutory rights —for example, in respect of this Clause, or, to take another point raised by the right hon. Lady, in respect of information. They do not have those rights at the moment. In future, they will have the rights which they have now, but the new statutory rights will be confined to registered bodies.
There are no penal sanctions against unregistered bodies, but there is a denial of certain rights. It may be controversial, 389 but we believe that it should rest on the principal of registration. Whether our principles of registration are right or wrong is no doubt a matter of separate debate and deep controversy. All we are saying is that these rights should depend on the achievement of registration. We believe that to be a sound principle, and we shall stand by it.
§ Mr. OrmeListening to the involved reply which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he went from one Clause to another to try to prove his point—my right hon. Friend pointed out that "organisation of workers" appears in one Clause and "trade unions" in another—makes me wonder whether shop stewards and trade union officials will understand it.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the validity of the argument which we have put forward on the Amendment. My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Amendment talks about voluntary independent trade unions, but the Minister's proposal will take away from them these basic rights. The right hon. Gentleman spoke polemically on this matter. We feel just as strongly in answering his point.
I want to deal with the right of the employer to refer a matter to the court for decision on which should be the bargaining agent. It was not clear to me why this was written into the Bill in such detail. Now I begin to see, after what the Minister said, why it is put in. It means, for instance, that, in an industry where there is an unregistered militant trade union or a union which the employer finds difficult in negotiations and there is also a registered trade union, the employer will be free to submit the registered trade union, not the voluntary union, and get the Commission's endorsement or recommendation that that body shall be the negotiating agent.
I understood the Minister to say that every union would have the right, or a ballot would be available, to decide which should be the negotiating agent. But, as I see it, it could be used deliberately by an employer, first to try to buy time against perhaps the main union in the organisation and, secondly, to undermine that non-registered trade union.
I believe that the Minister will be faced with a situation in which unions will not 390 register—probably some of the key trade unions—and this will call into question the whole basis of the Bill.
I assume that throughout the whole of the Clauses, the industrial notes for guidance will spell out many of these facts. We ought to know what these notes for guidance are. Again, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
Many of these Clauses are unintelligible unless the Code of Industrial Practice runs alongside. I assume that the Code will deal with many of these points, but we do not have it. We have no indication of what it will say. The more we go into the jungle of these Clauses, 42, 43 and 44, the more we see the difficulties which we are up against. They will not untangle industrial difficulties but will make life almost impossible for people of good will in industry when faced with an employer or an employer's organisation which wants to be a devil's advocate against a union, whether a house union or a registered union. This could be disastrous and I do not think that the Minister has seen this point.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. GowerWe appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and his right hon. Friend have spoken passionately for what they conceive to be the best interests of the trade unions and those whom they represent. I only regret that implicit in the manner of their speaking, is a conviction, which I am sure is misplaced, that, whereas they have the best interests of the unions passionately at heart, the Government are intent only on destroying or bashing the unions, or, as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, knocking them down—
§ Mr. GowerIt shows nothing of the kind. I am prepared to debate that with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not the time.
This country needs a strong, self-reliant trade union movement. Our industry cannot do without it.
§ Mr. HefferThere was a report in The Times yesterday on the West German trade union movement, which showed that, as a result of there no longer being 391 any closed shop or 100 per cent. trade unionism, there has been a rapid decline in strength and power of the trade unions.
§ Mr. GowerI am sorry for any trade union movement which cannot achieve maximum membership through the quality of its service to its members. I hope and believe that our experience will be to the contrary.
Any Government needs a strong, virile and self-reliant trade union movement. I see nothing in the registration requirements complained of by the right hon. Lady which should be of any difficulty to our excellent trade unions. Indeed, most of them will automatically fulfil the reasonable requirements for registration.
The right hon. Lady did not reply clearly to the simply question which I asked her about those engaged in trade who have to fulfil the simple requirement of registration under the Business Names Act. If they fail to do so, they are at a serious disability if they then have to sue for non-fulfilment of a contract. But no one has suggested that that requirement of registration is unreasonable. Similarly, practically every commercial organisation, from the joint stock company in all its infinite varieties, private public and otherwise, must fulfil very comprehensive requirements of registration. The requirements here are reasonable, as my right hon. Friend has been at pains to point out.
§ Mr. HefferThey do not have to accept an enemy in their camp, do they? Clause 61(7) virtually means that a trade union will have to accept someone who is basically against the interests of the union, whether it likes it or not. If it does not accept that, it cannot be registered.
§ Mr. GowerAs that it has to do is to satisfy the formalities of the Act and show the registrar that its rules and procedures are fair, democratic and reasonable. To us, that is unexceptionable, and I should have thought that it would appeal to most hon. Members. Is it reasonable to add the words in the Amendment and so lessen the require- 392 ment for registration prescribed by the Bill?
My right hon. Friend's reply is unanswerable. The requirement is merely one that will enable any registered trade union to apply for the very considerable powers as special bargaining agents. There are no express disabilities from non-registration. It merely happens that this is one of the new extensive powers that unions will very properly hold and exercise under the Bill.
I see no objection to the present wording. The Amendment is impossibly loose. The phrase
or organisations of workerscould mean almost anything. It would not even be limited to a sort of unofficial trade union. It could include all kinds of organisations of workers which could be totally unrepresentative. I cannot believe that the Opposition will really divide the Committee on such absurdly wide wording.
§ Mr. OrmeIf it is such terrible wording and is so wide, why does it keep appearing in all other parts of the Bill?
§ Mr. GowerI am saying that it is absurdly loose in this precise context. The Bill provides that the application be made by any trade union, and the Opposition chime in with
or organisations of workers".That wording is far too wide and imprecise in this context, and for that reason alone must be rejected.
§ Mrs. CastleDoes the hon. Gentleman think that it is too loosely worded and imprecise to be included in subsection (3)?
§ Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)When the Secretary of State replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) he did what he has done once or twice in the Committee. When stuck with a problem of reality and a problem of the drafting of the Bill he retreats to something he calls principle, as if he will ascend into the clouds at Blackpool in October and draw divine inspiration for something he cannot justify to the Committee. That is what he has done this time. He knows perfectly well that there 393 is a real drafting problem and a problem in reality raised by the absence of a provision that an organisation of workers may apply for recognition. He reminds me very much of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Instead of getting a spell book, the right hon. Gentleman got a law book from the Solicitor-General. He will learn one day the same lesson as the Sorcerer's Apprentice learned—not to meddle with academic abstractions when dealing with reality.
What the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are saying is that it is wrong if the National Union of Mineworkers refuses to register or if the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers refuses to register, and they shall not be accorded recognition rights. He said that they must be forced to register; they must comply with basic provisions in order to achieve recognition rights. That is the argument.
Let us think about reality, not principle. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that if large unions choose not to register they should be denied recognition of the right to negotiate with the employers? What is also suggested, if that is not his argument, is not that one must register to obtain certain privileges, but that certain privileges will be taken away from one if one remains exactly as one is at the moment.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that certain privileges will be accorded only to those who go through the hoop of registration, he has the whole equation wrong. He is equating a trade union with something that does not even exist on the employer's side. He is not saying to us, for example, that, on the employer's side, in a corporate body such as a limited company, every member of that corporate organisation should obey certain principles. If he were saying that, he would surely be saying that the Government believe in putting an end to non-voting shares. He says that every member of a trade union must have control over its branches, its officials and its funds. Is he saying that every shareholder should have control over the directors of the company, should participate in the organisation and should have control over its branches? He is getting the equation wrong.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralAll we are saying at the moment is that the range of law that governs trade unions and their relations with their members is and should be at least as open to public debate and variation in the interests of the public and of trade union members as company law has been over the last 100 years. Company law has been changed and re-changed and modernised to deal exactly with these points, and it has happened without controversy. All we are asserting is that relations in trade unions should be as much open to consideration and discussion.
§ Mr. FraserWhat the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten is that one can choose to operate as a limited company or as a partnership. If one chooses to operate as a partnership, there is practically no legal restriction on one. We say that people should have the right to operate as a registered trade union or as an unregistered trade union. That is the equation.
§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)In a partnership, the full funds of the two partners are at risk and therefore they are more at hazard at the law than is a company. In the comparisons the hon. Gentleman is making between a union—an association of workers, if he likes—and partnerships, he will find that there is greater imposition of law on partnerships than is contained in the Bill.
§ Mr. FraserI do not disagree, but, first, the privileges are greater, and, secondly—and this is the vital thing—it is the principle of association that one has the right to choose whether one does one thing or the other. But the right hon. Gentleman is saying that any trade union in negotiation with employers will not have the right to choose because, if it does not register, there will not be the right to recognition.
§ Mr. R. CarrI am not saying that. I am saying that if, for example, the N.U.M. remained unregistered, it would have just as much right, unregistered, to obtain recognition from the National Coal Board as it has today. But it would not have acquired a new extra legal right to recognition over and above what it has today unless it registered.
§ Mr. FraserThe right hon. Gentleman chooses the N.U.M. as an example of an 395 organisation with which, he says, a State organisation will continue to negotiate. He concedes that he is refusing the right to apply for recognition as a trade union. But under the structure of the Bill, the employer can go to the Industrial Relations Court and apply for de-recognition. No doubt he will say that the C.I.R. would not be mad enough to produce that situation, but he is producing a Bill whereby it is possible for employers, who do not have to go through this hoop, to apply to have a union de-recognised, and in the context of organisations which are recognised as responsible, that is ridiculous.
9.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman says that under Clause 46 the Court can accord recognition only to a registered trade union. Why is it that Clause 43 talks about an "organisation of workers"? Why is it that Clause 45(3) talks about:
A report of the Commission under this section shall not recommend the recognition of an organisation of workers …unless certain conditions are fulfilled? Then it goes on in Clause 45(5) to say:… before recommending any organisation of workers …and in subsection (6) it says:Any recommendation contained in such a report may be made subject to such conditions as the Commission think fit; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) any such condition—(a) may require an organisation of workers recommended for recognition…".Subsection (b) says:may require any organisation of workers so recommended …".How on earth can he quote his statement to the Committee that only a registered trade union can have an order for recognition when he uses the phrase "organisation of workers" repeatedly?There is only one explanation—that it is only where the trade union is to be recognised that there can be a ballot and that is where the words "trade union" appear in Clause 46. It could be that under that provision the Commission for Industrial Relations could recommend a house union for recognition without a ballot but where the registered trade union wants recognition, it has to have a ballot. If the right hon. Gentleman 396 says that I have completely misconstrued the terms of his Bill, then all I can say is that I am entitled to because of the way it is drafted. May I ask him or his learned friend not to run away from the argument by talking about principles. Will he please answer the debate?
§ Mr. R. CarrThe hon. Member has completely forgotten in his argument that the whole reason for using the words "organisation of workers" in those Clauses is to give every opportunity to a body that is unregistered at the moment to get into position and be recommended for recognition, and to get registration so as to be able to have the enforcement of its rights in Clause 46. If it were an employer-dominated house union—I must repeat what I have said—it would fail to get the registration and therefore would not get the rights and privileges conferred in Clause 46.
§ Mrs. CastleIf that is so, what is the objection to putting the word "independent" in front of "organisation of workers"? As long as the right hon. Gentleman refuses to put in one simple clarifying word that would allay everyone's doubts, he must exacerbate those doubts.
§ Mr. Christopher Woodhouse (Oxford)This Amendment throws a good deal of light on one of the paradoxes of the Bill to which I have tried to draw attention. My right hon. Friend has said many times, and I accept his sincerity, that his intention is to be perfectly fair as between employers and organised workers. The way this fairness is translated into legislative form in most Clauses is by assuming that trade unions and employers' organisations are mirror images of each other, that they are equal, symmetrical twin pillars on which the whole structure can be built. In some Clauses, particularly Clauses 61 and 65, virtually identical rules are laid down for those two kinds of organisations. But the fact is that trade unions and employers' associations are totally different kinds of structure. I will not go into detail about all the differences that are relevant, but there are several points in the Bill where this artificial parallel breaks down completely, and this Clause is one of them.
My right hon. Friend has said, quite rightly, that it is his intention to insist on confining certain privileges, one of which 397 is embodied in the Clause, to those who have accepted the responsibilities of registration. He does that for trade unions, but he does not do it for employers. If we look one line further beyond the Amendment, we see that an employer has the right conferred by Clause 42 without any proviso or requirement about registration under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has pointed out that employers have to be registered under company legislation, which is perfectly true, but there is no obligation in the Clause on an employer to undergo the process of registration and to accept the responsibilities of registration before he enjoys the privileges created by Clause 42(1).
My right hon. Friend has good reason for insisting that the privilege on the side of organised workers should be confined to the registered trade union. He has made out his case on that point, but if he wishes to be fair, should he not also write into the following line an addition specifying that this privilege is only to be enjoyed by an employer who is a member of an employers' association and therefore limited by the same requirement of registration, as defined in the later Clauses of the Bill, as the trade union is in operating under the previous line of this Clause?
§ Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)I am sorry to detain the Committee, but it is necessary to question the Secretary of State a little more deeply on the details of the Clause. During the debate I have been going backwards and forwards through the pages and getting mixed up, for example, between the joint negotiating panel, which refers to two or more organisations of workers, and the joint negotiating trade union panel, which deals with registered organisations. As one goes through the relevant Clauses one finds occasionally the "joint negotiating panel", which is obviously taken to be the joint negotiating trade union panel.
The Secretary of State said that one of the misconceptions on this side of the Committee was to think that we were talking about a general situation. He claimed that this was a safety net, the long stop, to take account of the occasional situation that arises. I refer the Committee to the Explanatory Memorandum, which says nothing of the kind. It simply says: 398
Clause 42 provides for an interested employer, one or more trade unions or the Secretary of State to present to the Industrial Court an application that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be asked to examine questions relating to the definition of a bargaining unit and recognition of an organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel as sole bargaining agent with exclusive negotiating rights.There is nothing there to say that the Clause is intended to deal with the exceptional case. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that it is possible under Clause 42 to have established house unions or creature unions of the employers.The trade union is entitled to make an application but not an organisation of workers. Yet the employer is entitled to make an application on behalf of an organisation of workers. Naturally, in the light of the history of the trade union movement, particularly of the Foremen's Mutual Benefit Society, we are bound to be suspicious of a such situation. Nowhere in Clause 42 and subsequent Clauses do we find any explanation for the situation which might arise when an employer creates a house union and makes an application to the court for that house union to be the sole bargaining agent.
What happens when the court examines the case and finds that both the employer and the house union are in agreement that the house union should be the sole bargaining agent? Clause 43 and subsequent Clauses deal with the situation where there is a conflict of interest or view between employer and trade union. Clause 43, for example, says that the court must be satisfied that both parties
have made adequate use of any facilities for conciliation available to them.But what does the Court do when the parties are not in disagreement? We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for a detailed reply on this point. This again is an excellent example of the reason that a guillotine should never have been applied to this Bill, simply because of the sloppy wording of Clauses 42 to 50.
§ Mr. IremongerOne thing on which both sides of the Committee is clearly united is the fact that there are benefits, rights and privileges which it is intended trade unions should enjoy. Up until now 399 I had thought that this was a generally-recognised principle. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) did himself less than justice by saying that this was not a matter of principle. I regard this as one of the fundamental principles of the Bill.
§ Mr. John FraserWhat I said, or was trying to say, was not that it was not a matter of principle, but that it is no good trying to escape detailed argument by saying that it is just a matter of principle and stopping there.
§ Mr. IremongerThat may well be, and perhaps I have the hon. Member with me in saying that it would be a matter of principle. I certainly thought that both sides of the Committee were united that the benefits, privileges and rights enjoyed by trade unions should be dependent upon trade unions being registered.
§ Mr. HefferIt is like the privileges of a man in gaol.
§ Mr. IremongerIt lies ill in the mouth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to denigrate the rights, benefits and privileges which are the object of this legislation—
§ Mr. IremongerI will answer that in one sentence: the rights conferred by Section 42—otherwise what are hon. Members talking about? Presumably they are arguing that they want trade unions to be able to enjoy certain rights. Perhaps the most obvious right is that contained in the Clause with which we are dealing, namely the right to be recognised as a sole bargaining agent. If that is not a right worth talking about, then we are wasting our time in discussing this matter.
§ Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)Will the hon. Member not accept that trade unions are quite prepared to safeguard their own rights, whether it be of recognition or anything else, without having to depend on legislation such as that contained in the Bill which will restrict them in so many ways?
§ Mr. IremongerThe hon. Member is a little unwise, because the rights enjoyed by trade unions are those conferred by 400 legislation. Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act is a right conferred by law on trade unions, and I should have thought that if it were sought to repeal those rights any such move would be very much resisted.
9.30 p.m.
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. Either the Amendment he has put down is designed to secure a benefit or it is not, and if it is then we might take it as agreed that a benefit is to be secured and that is what we are talking about. The argument before the Committee is whether or not the benefit ought to be dependent upon registration and I had thought that that was common ground between both sides of the Committee. I agree that it is open to argument whether or not the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is correct, fair and right in saying that the provisions for registration in this Bill are odious and unacceptable. That is her view, and it is something which the Committee will have to consider in due course when we come to it tomorrow.
That is absolutely fundamental, but the point I wish to establish at this stage on these Amendments is that it really is not appropriate for the right hon. Lady, who I believe is about to rise and I would like to know her comments on this, to deny the second principle which is that the rights conferred by the Clause, or any other part of any enactment, should be dependent upon registration; because she has herself analysed the situation in these words:
The present legal requirements relating to the rules of trade unions are inadequate and should be extended in the interests both of the unions and of their members.She goes on to say that legislation should propose that trade unions should register with a new registrar of trade unions and that unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters—admission, discipline, disputes between a union and its members, elections, strike ballots and the appointment and functions of shop stewards, and should be required to register. The right hon. Lady even went further and said that refusal to register by a trade union should lay that trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board. 401 At this stage, therefore, although the Committee may well be persuaded by the right hon. Lady when the time comes that the provisions for registration in the Bill are wrong or unfair or should be changed, it is a matter on which the Committee will have to decide and we are not prejudging it now. But, with great respect, it is quite wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite at this stage to try to fly in the face of the principle which is fully accepted by both sides that the very considerable rights and privileges which trade unions claim should be enjoyed without registration, and registration subject to rules determined upon by this House.
§ Mr. R. CarrI intervene only for a moment, but it might be helpful to the Committee if I do so because I believe there is at least one point on which we can reach agreement. I have said quite clearly, as has my hon. and learned Friend, that it is not the intention to encourage the employer-dominated house union. We also believe, and genuinely believe, that that is not the effect of the Clause as it is worded at the moment: and I have explained why. Nevertheless, while I do not like adding unnecessary words to a Bill, I do not mind adding one if it helps to solve the difficulty.
I must say to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I do not believe it is possible to add it where she would wish to add it in this context. I believe the place to add it might be in Clause 45, and I will tell the Committee that when we come to that point at another stage I will consider very favourably the possibility of including there something which makes clear that the Commission will be empowered only to put forward as a sole bargaining agent an organisation which is independent. That, at least, would clear up that point beyond peradventure.
§ [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
§ Mrs. CastleWe are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for trying to help us achieve greater clarity. Clearly we shall want to examine the right hon. Gentleman's proposal before we are satisfied that it offers us greater clarity or that it goes far enough. None the less, we shall be glad to examine the proposal on Report, which is no doubt when the right hon. Gentleman will put it forward.
402 The right hon. Gentleman realises that he has not conceded the main principle behind our Amendments, and we therefore intend to divide the Committee. He has tried to say that nobody should be opposed to the principle of registration, that I have not opposed it in "In Place of Strife", and so on. He says that we ought to agree on that, even though we argue about the conditions tomorrow. Our case is that it is impossible to differentiate between the principle of registration and the conditions of registration.
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) rattled off at me about the trader who has to register under the Register of Business Names Act and said that there was nothing iniquitous about that and nothing to which anybody can object, but, as I told the hon. Gentleman, no great disabilities follow, and whether it is iniquitous to expect a trader to register depends entirely upon the conditions imposed upon him and what disabilities might flow from that requirement. Would the trader to whom he referred have registered so equably if, as a condition, he was forced to allow someone to work for him who was also working for his competitor?
That is the kind of condition which will be imposed on the trade unions under the next part of the Bill. We cannot accept that we should concede the principle of registration and argue merely about conditions, and I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 258, Noes 300.
§ [For Division List 134, col. 451.]
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannI beg to move Amendment No. 697:
§ In page 30, line 5, to leave out '(b) an employer'.
§ The ChairmanIt will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 698, page 30, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
§ Mr. Douglas-MannThe purpose of the Amendments is to delete the provision under which an employer can apply for a trade union to be appointed 403 the sole bargaining agent and the subsequent provisions in subsection (3).
The great danger to which the Secretary of State and other Ministers have referred which these very unsatisfactory provisions of the Bill are designed to meet would all be satisfactorily met by deleting the provision which the Amendment is designed to eliminate and leaving the trade union to make an application to be appointed the sole bargaining agent and the employer, in the rare cases in which the problem justified the step, to make an application to the Secretary of State to apply for a union to be appointed as sole bargaining agent.
The reasons which prompted me to move the Amendment stem from my fears of the danger of grave abuses which the Bill as it stands leaves wide open. I shall not repeat the arguments which I advanced on Clause 41, but there is a very substantial danger that an employer could seek to promote a tame company union, or a tame union, to be the sole bargaining agent.
Although the Solicitor-General will no doubt point out that the C.I.R. is unlikely enthusiastically to recommend such a union, there have been many situations in which employers have successfully promoted amongst their staff a trade union which was very subservient to the employers' interests.
When speaking earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State drew attention to the fact that the union that would be appointed must be independent. I was hesitant to contradict him at that time, but I was delighted a few minutes ago to hear him conceding that there is no provision in the Bill as it stands to ensure that the sole bargaining agent is an independent union, and that he is now proposing to ensure at the Report stage that Amendments to guarantee the independence of the unions will be introduced.
But the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148 is not by any means sufficiently watertight. The wording is:
'independent', in relation to a trade union or other organisation of workers, means not under the domination or control of an employer or of a group of employers or of one or more organisations of employers;Presumably there is no case law at present on the subject of what "domina- 404 tion or control" means precisely with regard to trade unions. But if one has a union even with a wholly independent executive or with a majority of elected representatives, say, seven elected representatives and five representatives appointed by the employer on its executive, it would still come within the definition of "independent" contained in Clause 148. Even if one has a union with a wholly elected executive, if they were, for example, elected for very long periods, it is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that trade union officials are no more immune from gradual weakening of resolution than anyone else. There are great incentives for an employer to get a quiescent trade union appointed as a sole bargaining agent with which he can subsequently make legally enforceable collective agreements which are binding on many people who are not and would not wish to be members of the trade union concerned, but who wished to belong to another union which was prohibited from getting itself put forward as an alternative bargaining agent.I urge the Government to accept the Amendment, which would remove from these provisions the dangers of the most serious abuses. Many abuses would remain, but the most serious is that of the employer promoting a tame union. The Amendment is designed to ensure that that cannot occur.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisWe have had a good deal of discussion, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite seem to be very concerned about tame unions or unions tied to the skirts of employers. I should have thought that Mr. Clive Jenkins was getting rid of a great many of them. His activities in recent years been been quite effective in increasing the size of his own union. Because we believe that trade unions are effective if they are well organised, we have no complaint about that. Indeed, I understand that employers have not complained in some of the establishments where Mr. Jenkins has gained a footing.
There is a danger that we may have from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite the suggestion that they are concerned about tame unions when what they are concerned about is the possibility of smaller unions developing at the expense of some of the bigger ones. We 405 on this side of the Committee have no such inhibition. We believe in competition between unions just as much as anywhere else. If some of the smaller unions grow and become more effective, that is all to the good. I have in mind some of the white-collar technical unions, for instance. If trade unions are efficient and give good service to their members, they cannot be tame unions. No employer will be able to hold a union in his grasp if it is known that another union is knocking on the door and can offer to the work people concerned a service which is better than that being provided by what might be a house union.
Whatever may be said by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and however they may criticise what they feel are the disadvantages of the Bill, it also gives many advantages, some but not all of which were contained in their own proposals. The advantages are greater than the disadvantages and, if trade unions are strengthened, they will be more able to give the kind of service to their members which will make tame or house unions completely obsolete.
§ Mr. Frederick LeeI want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). When the Committee considered the last group of Amendments, the Government's answers to the straight question of the difference that registration makes were totally obscure.
It will not have escaped the notice of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the trade unions are not altogether enamoured with much of this proposed legislation. On balance, it may be that a number of important trade unions will decide not to register. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but it may be that the General Council will recommend that unions should not register. If that happens, I do not see how the legislation can function. However, such a state of affairs will bring very much to the forefront what are the advantages of registration.
Listening to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am still not clear what the advantages are. One hon. Member on the back benches opposite said that his party did not seek to take away any of the rights of trade unions, even if they 406 did not register. If that is so, what is the point of registration?
These are points which the Government have not yet made clear. Taking the engineering industry as an example, let us suppose that the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions decides that it will not register. The position will be reached where an employer makes a recommendation about the type of union which shall constitute the sole bargaining agent. There will be the three parties: the trade unions, the employers and the Secretary of State. There will be no recommendation from any trade union. There will be a recommendation from an employer, and it may be that what has been described as a tame house union will be put forward by the employer as the sole union with which he wants to bargain. Therefore, we shall be inviting industrial strife on a very wide scale if an employer's recommendation of that kind of union as the sole bargaining agent is to be accepted. Even if the unions are not desirous of registering, it would be far better, from the Government's point of view, to put the onus on them of suggesting the bargaining agent rather than the employer.
10.0 p.m.
I think that the Amendment, which seeks to delete the grave dangers which nomination by an employer in these conditions would bring, is, certainly from my angle, important and, from the Government's angle, well worth consideration.
The Government could help if they were more precise in defining whether registration is to be considered as a prime factor in determining who shall be the sole bargaining agent. Given two bona fide unions, affiliated to the T.U.C., as it were, running neck and neck on the numbers employed, and so on, if one were registered and the other were not, would that be the determining factor in the eyes of the Government as to which should get the right of negotiation?
We have not had answers to points like this. Instead, we hear about the virtues of principles. I remind the Government about a famous Irishman who suggested that there are times when a man must rise above principle. I think that this is such an occasion. Unless and until we get answers to some of 407 these points I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ Mr. GowerIt seems that if we abstracted from the Bill "(b) an employer" and the qualifying part of subsection (3) we should be restricting the power to make such an application to a trade union and to the Secretary of State. I suggest that there may be occasions on which it might be a great advantage for the employer to have this additional power. I appreciate why the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has his doubts about the additional power, and he has explained them.
I am sure that we can all imagine cases in which a reasonably efficient staff association could fulfil admirably most of the functions of a trade union. I accept that it would be undesirable in some cases that there should be a tame staff association or union which was unduly dominated by the employer. But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on an earlier Clause, if such an organisation were to be brought within the ambit of the Clause and to obtain these rights, it is inconceivable that it would subsequently obtain the registration which it needed to fulfil those powers.
In the other Clauses dealing with registration, he will see that, to carry out effectively the powers sought under this subsection, the association which he describes as tame would need to apply for registration. As my right hon. Friend said, in those circumstances, it is not conceivable that such an association, dominated by an employer, would fulfil the requirements. This additional power could be effectively used by some employers. They could apply on behalf of valid unions which would fulfil a valid function. It would weaken the Clause to take out these words.
§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)Clause 42 deals with proposals for recognition of a sole bargaining agent, which is defined in Clause 41(c) as one of the work people in the unit referred to there. It seems completely outwith any concept of industrial relations that the sole bargaining agent should be at any time at the behest of an employer. The definition is concerned 408 solely with the employee's interests, so I see no case for an employer being able to determine the sole bargaining agency, except under the conditions to which my hon. Friend referred.
In other words, the only case for giving an employer this right is when the employer decides that he wants a tame union of the company type which has bedevilled the trade union movement, particularly in some of the professional spheres to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) referred when talking about Clive Jenkins.
If the Under-Secretary could tell me some circumstances in which it can legitimately be argued that an employer could advance a case for this nomination, I might be convinced. Unless we are very careful, and unless the Amendment is accented, we shall have the situation in which an employer desires to have a tame union or a company union and a measurable number of employees will resist. If an employer takes advantage of the opportunity afforded to him under the Measure to nominate the sole bargaining agency, whether it is a professional or industrial type of unit that he represents, inevitably the lads will want to have a union of their own, as distinct from the employer's union, and we shall have industrial conflict.
Can the Under-Secretary tell me the kind of case that can be argued for any employer to nominate the sole bargaining agency of a trade union? I know that there is identity of interest on both sides of industry, to a given point, as I have argued for 15 years as a trade union official. But beyond that point the interests diverge. Any employer who suggests that he could even nominate the sole bargaining agency for his employees is presumptuous in the extreme.
If the Under-Secretary's explanation is not adequate and he does not resolve here and now the problem of the discrepancy between affording an employer the opportunity to nominate the bargaining agency and the definition of a bargaining agency in Clause 41, I shall keep him a long time on the issue. It is fundamental to the rights of people in industry that they should be able to determine the persons and organisations who shall represent them.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)There are perhaps some misunderstandings about the idea that employers should be entitled to apply for a reference to the N.I.R.C. The Government feel that it is right and proper that there should be provision for employers to be able to apply for references alongside trade unions and the Secretary of State. This is a means of getting problems sorted out by an independent body. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) laughs, but the C.I.R. is designated as an independent source. [Interruption.] We shall debate the C.I.R. at a different time. I am telling the Committee that it is an independent source. In effect, where there is difficulty the employer can put forward his case via the Industrial Relations Court to the C.I.R. and have matters sorted out for him. I stress to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that this is not a question of nomination. It is a question of application. It raises the question of who should be the bargaining agent, but it is not the employer who will decide that.
The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) asked what would happen where a registered union and a non-registered union competed in these circumstances, and whether the registered union would win. In effect, it is a decision that the C.I.R. will have to make. It might recommend the formation of a joint panel, but in due course the unregistered union could not enjoy the rights under Clause 46 unless it became registered.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. McNamaraThe hon. Gentleman suggests that we might have a joint panel of registered and unregistered workers. What would happen if, at the end of the day, there were an official dispute and the panel decided to declare a strike? Are we to have a situation in which members of registered trade unions are protected by virtue of being registered but those belonging to an organisation of workers are not protected because they are not a registered trade union?
§ Mr. Dudley SmithThe panel could obtain recognition only if all its members were registered.
§ Mr. McNamaraThe hon. Gentleman is saying that in fact it would not be recognised.
§ Mr. Dudley SmithAs I said, I think that the C.I.R. could put this particular point forward.
The hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann), moved the Amendment fairly and I would have appreciated his point if we had not had the previous debate. I think he now sees that there are adequate provisions to eliminate any idea of tame trade unions. As we have said before, and as I now repeat, the C.I.R. is unlikely to recommend recognition of a tame union. My right hon. Friend has said that there is no intention on our part to encourage or to allow tame unions, but he is going to look at the matter further and establish the fact that independent organisations of workers will be the ones which will qualify.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannWill the hon. Gentleman confirm that he thinks there is no provision that stipulates a union nominated by an employer? He says that it is not a matter for nomination but for the C.I.R. In fact the provisions as they stand refer to
organisations of workers specified…in the employers' organisation or negotiating panel. Does he confirm that it will be the employers who will be nominating the unions to be considered and that it is open to the employers to nominate unregistered unions because there is no provision in the Bill to restrict them from doing so?
§ Mr. Dudley SmithYes, the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that. But it is for the C.I.R. to make a decision. My right hon. Friend made it clear in the last debate that the question of organisations of workers will be looked at in relation to their being independent. We maintain that the definition "independent" is the right one, but if the Committee feels that it is not the right definition we can discuss it on Clause 148. But I must point out that, if hon. Members feel that "independent" is wrong, in the Labour Government's Bill the term "independent" defined independent trade unions. I thought that that definition was appropriate.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerWe must have one point to which the hon. Gentleman referred made quite clear. Will he make it clear, one way or the other, whether a joint negotiating body can be made up of registered and unregistered organisations of workers? He did say once that this could be so and then he seemed to leave the thing in the air.
§ Mr. Dudley SmithIt can be put forward in that way but it can only apply for statutory recognition if all the members are registered. That is the situation. We have taken the point put forward by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) about tame unions and there is no intention to encourage them. My right hon. Friend will deal with this on Report. If the hon. Gentleman is still doubtful we can debate this on further occasions.
There are reasons why employers should be allowed to apply for references—very rare and complex situations in conditions of inter-union rivalry when an employer might legitimately wish to protect himself against either one or other of the unions not being willing to apply to the N.I.R.C. In that situation, with strife and chaos evolving, an employer might want to take action and make the application to the N.I.R.C. What we are trying to achieve is orderly procedures, and an improvement in industrial relations. In difficult circumstances, which may be comparatively rare, it is right that the employer should be able to make application. In view of the assurances given in a previous debate I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannThere is one point with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Is there any reason why, in the circumstances he has outlined, in which an employer might wish to get this question clarified, he should not make a reference to the Secretary of State who could then make a reference to the Court if he considers the circumstances appropriate?
§ Mr. Dudley SmithThat would lead to a political decision and we do not think that is necessarily right. The various parties enumerated should be able to go to an independent organisation like the C.I.R. [Interruption.] That is my view and I am entitled to put it forward. 412 It is better for this to be decided upon by the C.I.R. in the circumstances.
§ Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)The reply to this short debate has been most unsatisfactory—in fact it has been pathetic. The Minister has not answered one point raised from this side of the Committee. I put my question to him again: what would happen if an employer referred to the Commission a case in which he had two trade unions operating in his establishment, one a registered trade union, the other an unregistered trade union, and the Commission decided that there should be a joint negotiating body composed of representatives in equal numbers from the registered and unregistered unions?
What would be the position of those organisations under this Clause? For example, if there were an industrial dispute, one would have the protection of the Bill and the other would be outside it. The whole of its funds would be at risk if it engaged in an industrial dispute. Is this not an impossible situation for any trade union to contemplate?
The Minister will not say that most of the unions would be registered, because my information is that the majority will not register, and as a consequence there will be all sorts of difficulties if we proceed along these lines. We are entitled to have an explanation of this Clause. If it were possible to psychoanalyse the mind of an employer then we would know the reason for the Clause—it enables an employer to make an application to the Commission for sole bargaining rights.
It seems that the friends of hon. Members opposite have told them that the motor car industry has to negotiate with 22 unions, whereas in Germany the negotiations are with one union. The motor car industry wants to know why it cannot negotiate with one union in this country. This is an attempt to get sole bargaining rights in the hands of one or two big unions.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know nothing about industrial relations, cannot understand the evolution of the trade union movement in this country. In Germany the trade unions were restarted with a clean slate in 1945, on the advice of the British T.U.C. It was decided that there should be 12 trade unions and it was all planned. But in this country trade 413 unions have been evolving for 150 years. There was the growth of craft trade unions. Then with the great conurbations the great national institutions arose, and the industrial unions. With the rise of new industries came new unions with hundreds of different practices, different rules and so on. The trade union movement in Britain cannot be treated in the same way as the trade union movement in Germany. We did not start with a clean slate.
We are left with eleven million people organised on traditional lines. The trade union movement cannot be unified into one or two bargaining units in each factory because of its evolution. If the psychology behind this Bill is to try to coerce the trade union movement into bigger conurbations and so reduce the number of unions, it will not work.
The greatest factor against it working is that no one has continuity of employment. It might work with stable employment and if a man could be guaranteed his job throughout his working life. But electricians, clerical workers and draughtsmen may have between a dozen and 20 employers during their working life, there is no stability, and therefore there must be craft unions to cater for craftsmen who move from factory to factory and from institution to institution.
The Minister has not replied to the question raised by my hon. Friends of what the employer would do if he had the opportunity of nominating his bargaining unit. We have asked what would 414 happen to the company union, the staff association, the house union or the compliant union which, in the striking language of our American cousins, is called an organisation that signs "sweethearting" contracts with employers. As set out in the Clause, employers have the right to nominate this type of union to the Commission in the hope that it will be accepted as a stooge to negotiate in place of the real trade union.
In many establishments trade unions only have a foothold, where only 25 or 30 per cent. of the employees are organised, but the employers have to recognise their right to bargain at the moment. If they are given the opportunity of opting for something else, they will disregard the trade unions which are building up their membership.
It is sensible not to allow the employers to pick the agents they want who would accquiesce in their demands. The trade union movement is a movement of struggle. We do not ask for rights or privileges. We fought for our rights and privileges. We have sacrificed, starved and died for our privileges. We do not come cap in hand asking for privileges from the employers. We have reached our present establishment of eleven million organised workers by fighting for the rights of working people and we have established these rights by building up a strong organisation. This legislation is aimed at weakening the organisation, and I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the Committee on this issue.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ [MR. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
§ Mr. LoughlinI am glad the Secretary of State has now come into the Chamber. He will be aware that I raised certain matters with the Under-Secretary of State, whose reply was inadequate. Indeed, he seemed reluctant to give way.
§ Mr. Dudley SmithThe hon. Gentleman must be fair. I gave way about five or six times. I rarely if ever speak in this House without giving way. If I do not give way, it is usually because of pressure of time.
§ Mr. LoughlinI thought the hon. Gentleman gave way twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] At any rate, he refused to give way to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] Well, we all think we should be given way to. HANSARD will prove how many times the hon. Gentleman gave way.
The hon. Gentleman argued that an employer should have the right to protect himself. Then he made the revealing statement that we were dealing with the right of trade unions to be the sole bargaining agency, and I quoted to him the definition of "sole bargaining agent" in Clause 41. Of course, the purpose of a trade union is to safeguard its members and, if it is to do so properly, obviously it has to be independent of the employers. Short of that situation, it cannot safeguard those rights.
What right has any employer to be the arbiter as to who should be the sole bargaining agent. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not such a right."] But he nominates. I want to be brief, but I will try to explain the situation for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Clause 42 says
An application under this section may be made to the Industrial Court by any of the following parties that is to say—(a) one or more trade unions…".That is the issue. If the employer makes an application and the Industrial Court agrees, it means that the employer is the arbiter, as I argued in the first instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course it does. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be a little sensible about this. I have been very lucky. I have been on the management side, as well as on the trade union side, and I was 416 on the former before I was a trade union official.
§ Mr. ScottIt is clear from Clause 45 that the only arbiter in this matter is the general wishes of the employees concerned. That is what is being built into this part of the Bill, and that is the only thing to be borne in mind.
§ Mr. LoughlinI am dealing with Clause 42, which is three Clauses before Clause 45. I have been in this House for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—It may be too long for some hon. Members, but it is not too long for me, and I shall be here for many years more than some of those who have recently come into the House. I am more egotistical than some of the newcomers.
We are dealing with Clause 42. Once we pass this Clause and the Amendments to it. Clause 45 will be of no consequence. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me of any circumstances in which the employer has the right to determine which trade union organisation shall be the sole bargaining agency in the unit?
§ Mr. R. CarrI assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer is "No"; nor does the Bill provide for that.
§ Mr. LoughlinThat is what the Bill says. We have met this problem time and again. I should like to know the legal definition of "an employer". The sooner the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the Bill on the ground that it is incomprehensible to the ordinary person, or that the words in the Bill are indefinite and indecisive, the better it will be for us all.
Mr. HellerI think that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for putting down these Amendments, because they have revealed once again that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite either do not understand their Bill, or they have got themselves into an extremely confused situation.
In replying to the debate the Minister said that we could have a joint panel of either registered or unregistered trade unions—meaning organisations of workers, a mix, a joint panel. I want the hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said. 417 Is that what he means? Is that the position? If he does mean that, then he does not understand the Bill, because the Bill does not say anything of the kind, and this is one further example of the complete confusion into which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting the Committee and the country with this Measure.
A little earlier, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) who raised a point about "independent" and said that an organisation of workers could be recognised as a sole bargaining agent, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government do not really mean that, because once it becomes the sole bargaining agent it must be a registered trade union. The Bill does not say that.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe distinction, which is plain throughout, and consistent with the point of principle made by my right hon. Friend is that the Commission is encouraged to put forward a union, or an organisation of workers, a joint panel, one or the other, registered or unregistered, of the unions and organisations to be found in the plant or unit. The Commission is encouraged to put forward whatever solution seems most likely to produce a reasonable bargaining situation. That is the position arrived at up till Clause 45. The only point at which those bodies must register is when under Clause 46, whether separately or jointly, they seek to claim their new statutory rights to enforce that solution upon that employer. It is at that point that Clause 46 requires them to be registered, entirely consistently with the proposition that the new rights should be in line with registration.
§ Mr. HefferThat is fine. Let us suppose that this procedure is followed whereby an organisation of workers, because the application has been made by the employer or by the Secretary of State, is referred to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. decides that it should be recognised as the sole bargaining agent. Then the Solicitor-General says that under Clause 46 at that stage it must become a registered trade union. Let us suppose we have gone right through this procedure and the organisation represents a great body of opinion amongst the workers; it has the majority in the ballot. What happens if the organisation decides that 418 it does not want to become a registered trade union? Hon. Gentlemen reveal stage by stage how impossibly idiotic the Bill is.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralBefore that organisation can then claim the new statutory right, it is required to register. That is entirely consistent with the principle my right hon. Friend enunciated and with the principle set out in paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife".
The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period.… Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board.We believe that rather than impose financial penalties upon unions that fail to register it is right to encourage them to do so by giving them the benefit of the new statutory position.
§ Mr. HefferThe hon. and learned Gentleman is like the rabbit before the stoat; every time he thinks about "In Place of Strife" he is petrified. He cannot get beyond thinking about "In Place of Strife". I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman begins to think about his Bill, because it is his Bill that is being put before the country and which will apply to the trade union movement. I therefore suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman answers the points that arise on the Bill. I should like answers to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends and which have not been satisfactorily answered.
I ask my hon. Friends to vote for these Amendments, because the Amendments are absolutely right.
In his Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) says that we should eliminate the employer. I agree entirely. [Laughter.] It seems that many employers are eliminating themselves by bad management. Perhaps we will not need to put them out of business, because they are putting themselves out of business. I am talking about the words "an employer", which the Amendment proposes to delete. It should be removed because as long as it is in the Bill there must be the suspicion in the mind of the entire trade union movement that it is possible for an employer to make an 419 application for a tame union, a house union or a company union, whatever it may be called, which is acceptable to the employer and to no one else. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is wrong."] If we are wrong, why have the provision in the Bill? Why not accept the Amendment? If our suspicions are unjustified, get rid of them by deleting this provision.
§ Mr. LoughlinThe Ministers should read their own Bill.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. HefferIf the purpose is not to make provision for the possible acceptance of house unions, would the Minister give the reasons why an employer must make the application or can make the application? If the purpose is not to assist a house, company or tame union, why not allow the organisation of workers to make the application in addition to the trade union? That is the fundamental question. It has not been answered and I should like to hear a positive answer to it.
§ Mr. R. CarrI forget whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was here, but if he was he must have forgotten that earlier this evening I gave an undertaking that I would make it clear—I think it is clear, but if there is any doubt I will make it doubly clear—by introducing an Amendment in the appropriate place saying that the C.I.R. cannot recommend as sole bargaining agent anything but an independent organisation—
§ Mr. LoughlinWhy not set it out in the Bill?
§ Mr. CarrI will not accept the Amendment because we believe that employers as well as trade unions and the Secretary of State should have the right to initiate this procedure. We have explained why we think that three parties—the Secretary of State, the trade union and the employer—should have the right to initiate this procedure. Although I believe it is sure, I am prepared to make it doubly sure that the C.I.R. cannot recommend other than an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. I think that that is the assurance for which the Opposition ask.
§ Mr. HefferIt is not.
§ Mr. McNamaraI am not sure whether the Secretary of State has given way or not, but what he has said is that he will give an undertaking that the C.I.R. will recognise only an independent organisation of workers as the sole bargaining agent. Unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber when this commotion was started by the Under-Secretary of State. We want to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by an "organisation of workers". Does he mean a registered trade union? Confusion has been worse confounded by three contradictory statements. The first came from the Under-Secretary of State. Then the Solicitor-General made his unhelpful contribution and said that it could be recognised as the sole bargaining agent but when it started to exercise its rights it would have to register. Then the Secretary of State spoke.
We should have an answer to this point. If the Secretary of State cannot give it, there is only one other Minister who has not spoken, and that is the Minister of State. Perhaps he could throw in his hat and let us know the answer.
§ Mr. CarrIt is a pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not listen or does not want to hear, but this point has been answered several times this evening. However, I will answer it again. We have said that we see no reason why the C.I.R. should not put forward for recognition as a sole bargaining agent an unregistered organisation of workers providing it is an independent one. If that unregistered organisation of workers which has been put forward by the C.I.R. for recognition then wishes to take its legal right under this Clause it must get itself registered. If it does not, it has its rights but not the legal sanctification and strength behind it, because it should be a registered body to take this extra legal right. The only object of allowing the C.I.R. to put forward an unregistered organisation as long as it is independent, is to give the opportunity to such a body to move into that position. Then if it wishes its de facto position to be strengthened by the new statutory right, it must get itself registered.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerWith great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he has missed the point. The Under-Secretary, when 421 replying earlier to my hon. Friend, said that a joint negotiating panel could consist of a mix of both registered and unregistered unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is asking whether we are to understand that this is the case or did the Under-Secretary make, perhaps, a pardonable slip of the tongue or an error.
§ Mr. McNamaraI have obtained from HANSARD a proof copy of what was said by the Under-Secretary. He said:
The panel…that is, the joint panel—…could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered.I was saying that the hon. Gentleman was saying that it would not be recognised. The Under-Secretary has said that the C.I.R. could put this point forward.
§ Mr. R. CarrThat is absolutely right.
§ Mr. McNamaraWe do not know where we are. The right hon. Gentleman is saying "Absolutely right", and I am saying that the Under-Secretary said:
The panel could only obtain recognition if all its members were registered.That presumably means that a joint panel coming from a factory could only be recognised if all its members were in registered trade unions. Immediately after my interjection, the Under-Secretary says that that is not a fact. Now he says that if they do that and we have one which is unregistered recognised, when it comes to the question of being recognised and exercising any powers it has by virtue of being recognised, it cannot exercise those powers because it is unregistered. This is nonsense.
§ Mr. R. CarrIt is not nonsense. First, let me deal with the case of a single body recommended for recognition. If that body wishes then to acquire the new statutory right to recognition, it must get itself registered. The C.I.R. can also put forward a joint panel as its proposed bargaining agent. If that joint panel contains any unregistered members, then if that joint panel wants to have its statutory right to recognition—as opposed to any de facto right it may enjoy—all its members must be registered. If a bargaining agent, either a single organisation or a joint panel, thinks it of value 422 to have this new statutory right to recognition, then it must be registered.
§ Mr. Douglas-MannWill the right hon. Gentleman make it clear what an organisation of workers recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would need to do to have the statutory rights to which he refers? Would it still have the right to make collective bargains legally enforceable on behalf of the employees concerned? Whether or not the matter went to the court under Clause 46, what requirements for registration arise under Clause 47?
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the sole bargaining agent recommended by the C.I.R. under Clause 45 would have the power to make legally enforceable bargains, and that it would not be necessary for it to become registered?
§ Mr. R. CarrI am not sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman's point? I think that the answer to his question is "Yes". The body could have the right, if it wished, to make a legally binding agreement without having to have its statutory right.
§ Mr. SillarsI have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General saying that under Clause 46 an unregistered organisation could not make an application. Clause 46(1)(b) says:
…the trade union or joint negotiating panel, as the case may be, may make an application to the Industrial Court under this section.The words used are "joint negotiating panel", and they are extremely important. There is a vast difference between those words and the words "joint negotiating panel of trade unions", which deal with registered organisations.Are we to take it that an unregistered organisation cannot make application to the court to have an agreement imposed which gives it sole bargaining rights, but that an unregistered organisation can make application to the court in respect of a registered organisation? That is what the Clause seems to mean. We are entitled to an explanation.
§ Mr. OrmeIf the Secretary of State says that he is looking into the possibility of meeting the point raised about the independent organisation of workers at the C.I.R. end, what is his objection 423 to meeting it at the beginning? If that body is not to have any standing before the C.I.R. and will be ruled out, why should it be possible for that organisation to be sent there by an employers' body?
Then we have all this confusion about joint negotiating bodies, unions which are registered, and unions which are not registered. I can see the intention here. There might be mixed bodies of registered and unregistered unions, but, as Clause 46 says, it will not be possible for the unregistered bodies to operate. I get that message clearly. But why is the Minister still reticent about the employers' attitude? He has heard from my hon. Friends how we feel that employers have no right to refer a trade union in the first place. What is it to do with an employer? We have made that point. We say that the employer has no right, and we remind the Government of the way in which, in the United States, this principle has been used continuously to refer bogus organisations solely in order to clog the machinery and stop the recognition of bona fide trade unions.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralAlthough the hon. Gentleman has valiantly criticised these proposals, I think that he has put himself on record as saying that the Bill published by the last Government was a good one. Will he explain—
§ Mr. Arthur LewisOn a point of order. I have now heard the Solicitor-General refer at least a dozen times to a Bill which is not before the Committee. He persists in going into the details of a Bill which is not before us. May I ask you, Mr. Mallalieu, to rule that even the hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to discuss not only a Clause or Amendment which is not before the Committee, but a Bill which was not even presented to the House?
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. LoughlinFurther to that—
§ Mr. LoughlinMay I say that it is, with all due respect to you—
§ Mr. LoughlinShut up. I do not want to delay the Committee because we have a lot of work to do, but it is surely in order on a point of order for—
§ Mr. Loughlin rose——
§ Mr. LoughlinI am sorry. I did not realise that.
§ Mr. OrmeIf the Solicitor-General repeats that statement outside I know what action to take. Can he quote the point he makes about the previous Bill? We are not discussing it. I have been highly critical of some past actions, but the Opposition are united in opposing the present proposals and nothing he and his hon. Friends are doing to try to drive a wedge will succeed because we find their proposals completely nauseating.
§ The Solicitor-General rose——
§ Mr. LoughlinJust clear the matter up.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralIf I may put the question, notwithstanding the intermittent observations of an occasional visitor from Cardiff, South-East. In reply to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), it is the case that the last Government's Bill recognised the right—
§ The Solicitor-General—of an employer to restrict the choice of trade unions——
§ Mr. Arthur LewisOn a point of order, Mr. Mallalicu. We want you to look at this again. Here we have the Solicitor-General not mentioning a Bill in passing but quoting from a Bill, and not for the first time, but continuously quoting a Bill which is not before the House and which has not been before the House. Is it in order on a Bill at Committee stage for the Solicitor-General or anyone else to do this? 1 have been told that one can discuss in Committee only what is on the Order Paper and 425 selected by the Chair at the time, an Amendment or Clause to a Bill which has received its Second Reading. The Bill the Solicitor-General keeps quoting has never received a Second Reading.
The Temporary ChairmanThe right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has not quoted from anything which is not relevant to anything going on in Committee at the present time.
§ Mr. LoughlinFurther to that point of order. Do I take it that once I am called in this debate I am entitled to discuss any Bill that might have been proposed in this House which has not received its Second Reading?
The Temporary ChairmanI hope the hon. Member will always refer to things which are relevant. That the Solicitor-General has done.
§ Mr. OrmeI hope the Solicitor-General will withdraw the remarks he is trying to attribute to me, which are not correct. I would ask the Solicitor-General and the Minister, instead of laughing about this matter, to answer the questions posed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We are entitled to have answers to these questions tonight. We have had utter confusion from the Government; they have delayed the debate by not being able to answer the questions which we have posed. I call on the Solicitor-General or the right hon. Gentleman to stand up now and to answer the points which have been put.
§ Mr. Ted FletcherThe Secretary of State knows that he is on a hook. We are not going to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of getting off it so easily. We want a reply to the question which has been put. I shall put it again. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order for repetition. If a registered and an unregistered trade union each had an equal number of employees in membership and the Commission decided to set up a joint negotiating committee, would both the registered and the unregistered trade union have recognition from the employer? If they have de facto recognition, would any agreement which they entered into be valid for the members of both the registered and the unregistered trade union? If an unregistered trade union is a valid union for negotiating and obtaining wage increases, 426 what is the purpose of registration; what are the disabilities?
Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General clear up this confusion, because we have had contradictory statements? The Government owe it to the Committee to say where they stand on this issue.
§ Mr. R. CarrI shall try again. The unregistered body has bargaining rights. It does not have to be registered to have bargaining rights. It has to be registered to have certain additional rights, including the statutory right to compel the employer to recognise and negotiate with it. If a union does not wish to have that extra statutory right, then in this context there is no need for it to be registered. If it does want this extra statutory right, there is the need to be registered.
§ Mrs. CastleThe position is clear. It means that if the machinery has been gone through for deciding the ideal bargaining unit and the ideal bargaining agent or group of organisations for that unit—the C.I.R. has examined the situation and made a recommendation, there has been a ballot and the vote of the workers has been obtained—and the result is a panel consisting of a registered and an unregistered union, then that ideal bargaining unit must collapse if the unregistered union refuses to register— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it must, because the joint negotiating panel will no longer exist. It will have been divided by this arbitrary law.
I suggest that we do not waste any more time on the nonsense of this Government. Let us vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 257, Noes 288.
§ [For Division List 135 see col. 455.]
The Temporary ChairmanThe next Amendment is No. 717, in page 30, line 6, at end, add:
(d) an employers' organisation on behalf of one or more of its members. standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton).
§ Mr. Tom Normanton (Cheadle)Amendment No. 717 is a twin to an 427 Amendment in similar terms which I moved to Clause 35 and which was rejected by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. It therefore, I sincerely regret to say, stands isolated and is now of relatively small relevance to the major theme we are debating. Without in any way minimising or with-drawing anything I said in moving the Amendment to Clause 35, or minimising what I still believe to be relevant in Amendment No. 717, I feel that I have no alternative but not to move it.
§ Mr. R. CarrI beg to move Amendment No. 714: In page 31, line 11, at end insert:
(5) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section otherwise than by the Secretary of State unless, before the application was made notice of the proposal to make it had been given to the Secretary of State; and where such a notice has been given —The effect is to provide that the National Industrial Relations Court shall not entertain any application under Clause 42 unless notice of the application has first been made to the Secretary of State, who will thus be given the opportunity to conciliate. It is complementary to the similar Amendment which I moved to Clause 35. The purpose is simply to emphasise that statutory references should be seen as a last resort after voluntary efforts, including conciliation by my Department, have failed, and therefore the objective is to avoid unnecessary references to the Court and onwards to the C.I.R.
- (a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party or parties giving the notice and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but
- (b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party or parties giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.
The Amendment was prompted by a suggestion made to me by Mr. George Woodcock and I have heard from him that he much welcomes the fact that I have felt able to put it on the Order Paper.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 290, Noes 254.
§ [For Division List 136 see col. 461.]
§ Question put, That the Clause, amended, stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 288, Noes, 257.
§ [For Division List 137 see col. 465.]
§ Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]