HC Deb 08 February 1988 vol 127 cc123-39
Mr. Strang

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 32 on page 15 and insert— '(1) After subsection (6) of section 1 of the 1984 Act (duty to hold election of voting members of a trade union's principal executive committee) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (6A) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of president of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, any equivalent position, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee. (6B) Notwithstanding anything in the rules or practice of any trade union, the person who holds the position of general secretary of the union, or in the case of a union with no such position, the position in the union which is the equivalent, or nearest equivalent, to that of general secretary, shall (if the rules do not otherwise provide for him to be a voting member of the union's principal executive committee) be deemed for the purposes of this section to be a voting member of the committee except where the post of general secretary (or nearest equivalent) is subject to appointment by the union and the rules and practice do not allow him to vote on the principal executive committee."' The amendment deals with an important part of the Bill. The House will be aware that in the Employment Act 1984 the Government required trade unions to elect members of their principal executive committee who had a vote on that committee. At the outset, let me say that Opposition Members oppose such interference in the affairs of trade unions. Trade unions' rules have evolved organically over many years and usually relate to their history and interests. Such rules provide the best way for the trade unions to conduct their affairs. We also believe that it is fundamental to our democracy that trade unions should be independent of Government interference and that it is an affront to the basis of independent trade unionism that the Government should seek to legislate on internal matters such as this.

However, the 1984 Act is on the statute book and at least it is has clarity: either a person has a vote on the executive committees or he does not. If he has a vote on the executive, he must be elected by the members, and if he does not, that requirement does not apply. Hon. Members will recall that the NUM amended its rules to comply with that requirement when it removed the voting rights of its president and general secretary. Subsequently, the NUM held an election and elected its president.

The important point is that clause 12 as drafted is utterly impracticable, and although the Minister sought to play down the draconian nature of the clause in relation to the officials who would have to be elected, his answers were not satisfactory. I draw attention to the provision that refers to any official who may attend the principal executive committee or who attends for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. We welcomed the assurance that the Minister gave in Committee that if individual officials attended the executive by invitation they would not be required to be elected by the members. However, we cannot rely on the Minister's statement. The whole area is still ambiguous. Many trade unions simply do not know whether officials, such as national officers covering particular sections of the union, will or will not have to be elected as a consequence of the clause. That is wholly unsatisfactory and we believe that the Government should clear that up and amend the Bill.

My second point relates to the giving of professional and technical advice on matters incidental to the carrying out of a union's functions. What emerged in Committee—it was quite remarkable—was that if an official who was normally there to give highly technical advice, possibly even on legal matters, strayed into giving advice that went beyond that, that official, whether he was called the legal officer or the administrative officer, would put himself in a position where he would have to be elected to hold that office in the union. That is what was said in Committee by the Minister when we drew an analogy between a legal officer in, for example, a trade union and a legal officer in a local authority. Therefore, to us that area of clause 12 is still ambiguous and it is unacceptable that it should go on the statute book in that form.

The other element of clause 12, which is an amendment to the 1984 Act, is the requirement that presidents and general secretaries will have to stand for regular election even if they do not have a vote on the executive committee. That is an outrageous interference in the internal matters of trade unions. As I said on Second Reading, several trade unions—I take as an example the National and Local Government Officers Association because it is a large trade union and organises the staff in local authorities—have decided that the general secretary will be appointed. NALGO's general secretary does not have a vote on the principal executive committee. In that union there is a clear relationship between the elected members of the executive, who are lay members, ordinary trade unionists, who work in the various sectors of local government—the gas industry or whatever—run the union, determine its policy and are in control, and the general secretary and the other officials who are appointed, have no vote and are answerable to them.

I do not submit that that is the only model that should apply to the trade unions, or that is the best model. However, it is outrageous that the Government should seek to pass a law that will make it illegal for a trade union such as NALGO to continue that reasonable structure which, as we have said, is mirrored in, for example, local authorities themselves. To give another example in which the position is quite clear, the same applies to the National Union of Public Employees, in which the general secretary is appointed and is answerable to the executive, which comprises lay members of the union who are regularly elected, as executives of trade unions generally are.

Although we are opposed to the whole imposition in principle, in amendment No. 8 we have done something reasonable and ingenious against the background of the Government's approach. We have said, "All right, we will accept the principle that where the official has a vote on the executive committee — that is the principle in the 1984 Act—he must be elected." That is the first point that we have conceded to the Government.

Secondly, we have said, "As far as presidents are concerned, we will concede that point to the Government." In any case, presidents are often lay members of the union. In relation to presidents we are saying, "We concede the point in the Bill that the president would have to be elected regardless of whether he has a vote on the executive." Surely to goodness the Government could at least allow trade unions that choose to appoint their general secretary, who does not have a vote on the executive, to continue to do so. It is an outrage that the Government will debar trade unions from appointing a general secretary who could be treated as a chief executive. After all, general secretaries have different roles in different unions.

This is a modest and reasonable amendment, in that it accepts what has already gone before in the 1984 Act, and goes further in that it will require the general secretary, to avoid having to be re-elected, not to have a vote on the executive committee. It also leaves the position as it stands in the Bill as it relates to the president.

That is why I hope that the Government will look carefully at the amendment. If they are not prepared to accept it tonight, they should at least be prepared to look again at the clause when the Bill is in the other place, because, quite simply, it is an insult to the intelligence of the House for the Government to suggest that such interference in the internal affairs of trade unions will influence the general conduct of industrial relations or somehow make trade unions more democratic.

That is nonsense. There is nothing undemocratic about a trade union electing lay members to run the union and enabling those elected members to appoint a chief executive or general secretary who is answerable to them.

11 15 pm

Mr. Winnick

Clause 12 is another piece of sheer nonsense and impertinence and an interference in the running of trade unions.

I speak from some experience as I have been involved for more than 30 years in a white collar trade union. I am a national officer of that organisation. Since that organisation came into being in 1890, the general secretary has always been appointed by the lay executive. The general secretary is regarded as the most senior administrative official. At no time has the person who has held the office of general secretary had a vote. That would have been inconceivable. The lay executive holds the authority in the union, and the general secretary, as a servant of the executive, is answerable to that body.

Because we are a democratic union, as are all trade unions, we decide our rules, regulations and policy at our annual conference. Every five years, at what we call the rules revision conference, which is part of our annual conference, we discuss changing and amending the rules. It is ironic that from time to time there have been suggestions that the general secretary should be elected. That inspiration has come from the ultra-Left, from those who would regard me as a timid reformist. The few revolutionaries in our number have gone to the rostrum and said that everyone should be elected, including the general secretary.

In the past few years, I have been the spokesman for the executive, and I have had to argue the case against that— without too much difficulty. I have never had any doubts that the conference would retain the position that it has held for many years. That is the position in my union.

Thus there is an alliance between those who could be described as revolutionaries and Conservative Thatcherites who believe that the position of general secretary should be subject to election. I argue as a democrat that each trade union should be able to decide for itself.

Some unions have always elected their general secretaries. In some trade unions the general secretary has a vote. However, in other unions such as in NALGO, in my union—APEX — in ASTMS and others, that has never been the case. Indeed, in my union, if the general secretary had the vote, there would have been a very strong case, which I would have supported, for that general secretary being elected. However, since he has never had the vote, and since it was inconceivable that he should have a vote on the executive, the large majority of the union never considered it appropriate that that position should he subject to election.

Apart from the general secretary, other people attend executive meetings. Despite the qualifications in clause 12, there may be court cases in which it is argued that somebody who is not a general secretary but who attends all or some meetings of the executive should be subject to election under clause 12. All kinds of complications and anomalies could arise.

Trade unions such as mine, which has always been run along democratic lines, are being lectured by a political party that is the least democratic that one could imagine. Sometimes I wonder which is the least democratic: the Communist party in the Soviet Union or the Conservative party in this country. The chairman of the Conservative party is not elected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was elected as leader of the Tory party in 1975. That is correct; I cannot dispute it. However, until 1965 the leader of the Tory party was not elected. It was only the late Mr. lain Macleod and Mr. Humphry Berkeley — who is not "late"—who argued convincingly that the Conservative party ought to change its ways. It was not until just over 20 years ago that the Conservative party decided to elect its leader, yet it is lecturing us about what the trade unions should do.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Is it not possible to take that point further? The prime qualification for getting the job of chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is not to be able to get elected anywhere else. The chief executive got the job only because he was defeated when he stood for re-election to this House. The chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland is a member of the other place, because he could not even get a candidature.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. It would be unwise to go down that road.

Mr. Winnick

No, it would not be wise. Since I always take the advice of the Chair I should not dream of going down that road. However, I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has made a valid point.

It is not being suggested that town clerks should be elected, yet the chief executive of a local authority is in precisely the same position as the general secretary of a trade union, because he is not a voting member of the executive. That is another illustration of a totally nondemocratic political party with a vast Commons majority dictating to trade unions that need no lectures in democracy from the Conservative party.

Mr. Allen

It is difficult to understand why a debate such as this is taking place. It was not until 1984 that intervention in the election of trade union executives was put on the statute book. However, we have almost become adjusted to the idea that we should argue about interference in the election of trade union executives rather than about the fact that we should be completely opposed to such interference.

The Trade Union Act 1984 stated that members of trade union executives should be elected every five years. We are now discussing a further rule change. There are 57 trade unions with over 10 million members affiliated to the TUC, and 48 of those unions will have to change their rules because of this latest Government imposition. One trade unionist out of 10 million will be able to take a trade union to court, assisted by the trade union harassment officer. He will be able to bring the whole process to a grinding halt, with financial assistance from the state. He will be able to hold his trade union over a barrel.

Trade union structures are to be completely overriden. Therefore, it is worth saying again that a great variety of trade unions, trade union procedures and trade union democracy has evolved over many years. To seek to impose one blueprint or plan on them is idiocy in the extreme. Unions have developed those procedures because they meet their needs democratically.

Some unions may wish to have a regional base to their elections because it is the most appropriate way to represent their members. That is not permitted under the 1984 Act. Other unions may want a powerful general secretary who has the authority of a direct election. Others, again, may feel that the role of a general secretary is more like that of a civil servant and that he should do what he is told by the union executive. Each union has developed its mechanism to suit its needs and industry. In this Bill the Government are imposing a blueprint which will sit idly on many trade unions.

Some trade unions feel that an appointed general secretary acts as a buffer to the immediate considerations that are necessary in an election. They perhaps take a longer, more objective view. We may or may not agree with that but it is the right of trade union members to make that decision for themselves. The legislation is removing that power from them.

One such example is NUPE. Its view is: Experience in unions where the General Secretary is required to stand for re-election at regular intervals suggests that there is a constant temptation to satisfy the wishes of active members, often at the expense of long term policy objectives, in order to assist their re-election. We may not agree with that, but it is entirely consistent with NUPE which discusses its procedures every year at its conferences and executive meetings. It should decide for itself that that is the best way for it to pursue its objectives as a trade union.

The other argument is that this should be called the Scargill clause because of the Prime Minister being kept awake at night wondering how much more she can wring out of the Scargill factor and crucify the NUM, and deciding to pursue this objective because of one individual—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

And ballot-rigging in the NUM.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Allen

I did not catch that comment.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

I shall repeat it. I said, "And ballot-rigging in the NUM."

Mr. Allen

The hon. Lady, like many Conservative Members, is quick to use that phrase but slow to produce the evidence. If she has evidence of ballot-rigging in the Conservative party or a trade union, she should bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is customary, when hon, Members have evidence, to lay it on the table. That has been the precedent for many years. If the hon. Lady has any evidence to back her scurrilous, inaccurate and erroneous allegation she should lay it on the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Hon. Members are free to express themselves as they wish, in accordance with our Standing Orders.

Mr. Allen

Direct elections may well provide greater strength and direct authority to particular general secretaries in unions. Some unions have deliberately chosen to have a weak general secretary because they feel that the executive, itself directly elected, should have the power and authority. For that reason they may wish their general secretary to be more of a civil servant. Under this legislation many unions will be forced to employ and elect a more powerful general secretary against their wishes.

Another union, the CMA — the Communication Managers Association — currently has three paid officers, a general secretary, who acts as chief executive, a deputy general secretary and an assistant secretary. Those people are now faced with a choice. Either they opt out of their national executive almost completely or they stand for election and assume a far greater significance within the structure of their trade union than has hitherto been the case. It should be for the union to decide that. We are seeing here something that we would not tolerate in any other sphere of social or political activity.

11.30 pm

In local government it would be absolute nonsense if the chief executive of a local authority put himself up for election each year or every other year and began to challenge the directly elected councillors and their political authority.

Similarly, perhaps the people who have written the speeches of the Secretary of State and the junior Ministers throughout the Committee — perhaps they are more powerful than the Secretary of State—should be put up for direct election.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I would ask the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) not to read newspapers in the House.

Mr. Haynes

Hang him upside down.

Mr. Allen

I do not know whether the fact that the hon. Gentleman was reading the Conservative party newspaper is a great compliment or a great insult.

The Secretary of State may well feel that it would be inappropriate for his permanent secretary or for the deputies to the permanent secretary to be directly elected. That is the system that is to be imposed on 48 trade unions whether they like it or not. That sits ill on the Bill.

The National Union of Insurance Workers has also been placed in difficulty. Given the time, I am drawing on just a few examples, but there are examples right the way down the list of TUC affiliates. I received a letter from Mr. Mortlock, the secretarial and research assistant of the National Union of Insurance Workers, who says: In February 1987 a new National Officer was appointed. The position had been widly advertised and attracted some 39 applicants, many of a very high standard. Had the appointment been subject to election it is inconceivable that a sensible choice could have been made from such a large selection. We may have views on whether that is right or wrong, but the trade union took that decision. Yet that trade union is now to have a system imposed upon it that does not suit it and may not meet its needs.

The Law Society was a very useful source of information throughout the Committee stage and it raised another point that we took up strongly. A number of officers currently attend a national executive committee and speak and offer a view. Their unions will now have to decide whether those people, because they appear at the national executive, have to go out for a full ballot. That has caused grave concern throughout all trade unions and that is the object of the clause.

The clause seeks to sow confusion and turn active trade unionists into returning officers. Therefore, instead of looking after the conditions of their members and their health and safety, those trade unionists are forever filling out ballot forms and producing ever more convoluted efforts to meet the Government's requirements.

The Law Society expressed great concern that union legal officers might have to be put out for a national ballot. On clause 12(1)(b), the society says: we fear that it might be possible for a union's legal adviser to be considered to be giving advice to the Principal Executive Committee which is more than 'incidental' to the carrying out of its function and accordingly he would be caught by the provision requiring election. I underline the fact that the trade union harassment officer — the trade union commissar — who has been appointed by the Government will do the dirty work of enforcing many of the provisions, will be there sitting on the back of every union executive committee, waiting for a slip-up and the opportunity to fund a vexatious litigant to ensure that the union toes the line.

Mr. Clelland

And who elects him?

Mr. Allen

No one puts that post out to national ballot. Exactly the opposite. That person must justify his existence by looking for cases. If there are only four or five cases a year, and the post will cost £1.5 million a year, there might be a Rayner review after a year and the post will be wound up. He will have to be cost-effective, so he will look for dissidents in the trade union movement.

The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union has highlighted another difficulty. It is extremely worried about the effect on its executive because of the many people who attend its executive meetings and who may be trapped by the clause. How many of the following officers will have to submit themselves to national ballot: one national executive officer, one principal national officer, 10 national officers related to various industrial groups, three financial assistants, one research director, one head of communications, one personnel manager, one director of education, one legal officer, one health and safety officer, one pensions officer, and occasionally regional secretaries who are called in to discuss specific matters — Northern Ireland was one example?

More than 30 officers give occasional, frequent or regular advice to the national executive of the GMBATU. There is no assurance that any of them would escape the clause. In his letter to me, the Minister said: I can say I should be very surprised if they were to be caught by the new subsection … As you are aware if a particular case was disputed then ultimately, of course, it would be for the courts to decide the issue. We all know who will come to the aid of litigious members in the courts — the trade union commissar whose appointment the House approved this evening.

That is another gross interference with the national executives of our trade unions. They have a marvellous tradition of democratic accountability that they have developed themselves, and they should be left alone to pursue that course. Conservative Members of Parliament should be the last people to lecture the trade unions on democracy.

Mr. Foot

It is outrageous that the House of Commons should devote its time to discussing this proposition. The more one hears about the Bill, the more insolent it seems that the Government should have dared to introduce it. It has been examined in Committee, and one would have thought that the Government might have shown a little grace and intelligence and given way to some of the representations that were made by my hon. Friends. But it is outrageous for them to continue, right up to Report stage, demanding that the House should lay down the detailed provisions for elections in trade unions. The Government should spend their time on a whole series of other matters. A Government who, as my hon. Friends have said, have few claims to democracy in many of their appointments, should not come forward with such a proposition.

Most unions have grown up and shaped and developed their forms of elections and the distribution of power between elected and non-elected officials in their organisations through their traditions. One might have thought that the Conservative party would have respected the traditions of organisations that go back for more than 100 years, and have been developing and shaping their organisations to suit their members throughout that time. But now this anti-trade union Government come along and demand that the unions adopt the uniform pattern that they want to enforce, with no exceptions. All unions must conform, and the Government do not give a fig for their traditions, preferring to force them to do things in the Government's way.

This is a disgusting piece of legislation. The previous measures, as my hon. Friends — especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a wonderful speech — said, were an insult to our democracy. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of the House of Commons. I am sorry for the Minister, who has been left alone on the burning deck to defend this ridiculous proposal.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), and accept his amendment gracefully. If they determine to go ahead without it, I look to the other place— I do not often look for intelligence there—for rescue from what is probably the most mean, petty, miserable, squalid little proposition yet put forward by this wretched Government. I hope that the House of Lords will throw it out, even if there are not enough independent Conservative Members in this House to do so tonight.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce

The clause raises several points that were brought home to me when I consulted some of the employers' organisations when the White Paper that preceded the Bill came out. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members said that employers were not sure whether the Government were right. They had supported the previous legislation, and felt that there was a case for the Government to step in and give the unions back to their members, but they were worried that, by going into such detail, the legislation, far from improving the relationship between management and employees, would aggravate it.

The provision on presidents was referred to earlier as the Scargill clause. I agree that some union practices, of which his was the most blatant example, are indefensible. I do not dispute the sincerity of people working in the trade union movement, but to listen to the impassioned speeches of some Labour Members, one would be forgiven for thinking that there had never been anything wrong with the British trade union movement, and that it had always acted in the best interests of the workers it sought to represent and of the wider community.

It is a legitimate concern of Government to establish a balance, but the employers' organisations were concerned that if this type of legislative detail was produced by the Government, they could hardly argue if different Governments in the future produced different forms of legislation on, for example—as I might wish—building participation and workers' rights into the system. Such organisations do not want such a detailed code imposed on them. They want to be given the freedom to work out for themselves how best to involve their employees in the decision-making process. If that is the view of the employers, and the Government seek to represent the employers, it is humbug to try to argue the merits of democracy on one side but the need not to intervene in detail on behalf of the other side.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) I should like to examine the details of the Labour amendment. As I understood it, the hon. Gentleman said that the position of president — the Scargill example — was conceded. His amendment proposes that a president should be treated as a voting member, and should be elected, but that that should not be the case for general secretaries who may be appointed by the executive. I agree very much with that point and the arguments that have been pressed by other hon. Members, but I am slightly concerned that the amendment might go a little too far the other way.

The argument is clear. The executive is elected and chooses to appoint a general secretary as the chief executive of the union. It is therefore not appropriate that the person appointed by the elected executive should have to be elected. That seems to be reasonable. The problem is that, because no time scale is set, it appears that a general secretary would be appointed without term, for a 10-year term, or for life under the Labour party's proposals.

As we have seen in the past, in those circumstances a general secretary can achieve an extremely powerful position in that union. If there is no provision for review, re-election or reappointment, that general secretary might effectively be in a more powerful position than the members of the executive, who are elected, depending to some extent on the terms of his original appointment.

11.45 pm
Mr. Winnick

While I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to develop, surely the same could apply to a permanent civil servant who holds a senior position. The permanent secretary to a Ministry could influence his Minister. In that case it is the fault of the Minister, who is not strong-willed enough to resist the pressures. It is the same with a trade union. If the lay executive is doing the job to which it was elected, it will ensure that the general secretary is answerable to that executive. It will not allow itself to be dictated to by any individual who has been appointed by it.

Mr. Bruce

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, which I am trying to probe. It is a matter of concern to me that, unintentionally, we might raise the role of the general secretary to a higher level.

I take the point that a democratically elected executive, which is subject to review every five years, should be strong enough to take appropriate action, but given that all the members of the executive are up for re-election every five years, there is a case for suggesting that the general secretary should similarly be reappointed every five years. I should prefer that, and it seems reasonable.

I accept the force of the argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that it is incredible that we are debating the detailed mechanisms of trade unions when in all sorts of other areas the Government are constantly lecturing hon. Members on both sides of the House about the need not to have such legalistic meddling by central Government. It seems that a double standard is being applied.

The Government are entering an area where they are interfering in details, the consequences of which are so detailed that they cannot be predicted. We have had the example of the Ford ballot. That may be fair, and the Government may sit back and say, "Well, we asked for democracy and we got democracy." But it is ironic that under systems that have been previously worked out, Ford workers might not now be on strike. The consequences of the Government's own legislation have accelerated a full-scale national strike.

One of the dangers of meddling in such detail is that the consequences cannot be predicted. While I can look at the matter objectively and say, "If we are to legislate for arrangements in trade unions, let us do it consistently," I accept the argument that we should not do it.

I predict that the Bill will do more harm than good to industrial relations. Having started out on a course that was popular, and in which in many respects they were right, the Government are going too far down the wrong road. They will do damage where previously they might have done some good.

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) made it abundantly clear that he did not like this clause. He felt that it was an outrageous interference. He said that he had tried to introduce amendments, which, while dealing with matters of which he did not approve, nevertheless tried to live within the clause. That was certainly the way in which we took his amendment, and I must disappoint him by saying that we cannot accept it. However, I concede that it was a constructive attempt to deal with something that he does not like.

With regard to the 1984 legislation, the principle that guided the Government was that those holding the most senior positions in the trade union movement should be responsive to their unions. We felt it appropriate that they should stand for election, and one can take a view of whether the process of election is a good way of making people accountable to those whom they choose to serve. That argument has raged during the debate, and I am sure that it did in 1984.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East reminded us that the argument has moved on because other developments have made it possible for people to play a key role and have a major say in the affairs of a union, while at the same time not having a vote. The hon. Gentleman said, as did some of his hon. Friends, that there are examples of union leaders laying down their vote. I do not think that anyone would suggest for one moment that their influence within the union has diminished.

If one accepts—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East certainly does not—that the 1984 legislation was right, in the light of developments it seems to us that the legislation should be uplifted.

One aspect of the clause that has caused concern—particularly to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I am not sure whether he was concerned that the legislation is vague or far-reaching — was the idea that under what will be section 6A(b) the requirement will extend to people who, under the rules or practice of the union, attend and speak at some or all of the meetings of that committee otherwise than for the purpose of providing the committee with factual information or with technical or professional advice with respect to matters incidental to the carrying out by the committee of its functions. On a number of occasions in Committee I was accused of framing or lending my support to legislation that lawyers will have a jolly time interpreting for people. Some legislation is easier than ot`hers but that provision is perfectly plain. One may not agree with the principle that it enshrines, but the words that it uses are as plain as one could expect to find on a statute. If one is playing a part in the deliberations of a trade union — not giving the information that a lawyer might, that it can go away, chew over and decide policy in respect of, but taking part in the policy-making process of a trade union—we say that it is right, as it was in 1984, that a person in that, position should be subject to election.

Mr. Allen

If the system is so good that it must be applied to trade unions, to what other organisations does the Minister suggest it should be applied?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that I was addressing his hon. Friend's comments one after the other, but if he wants to jump the queue I shall allow him to do so.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make the point that he has made a number of times in Committee. He may feel, on reflection, that it is not a terribly good one, but it is that, if it is good enough for the trade union movement, why is it not good enough for the Conservative party? All that I would say, without a trace of irony, is that if the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between a trade union and a political party, I feel for him. There is a difference, which is apparent to his hon. Friends —[Interruption.] The ripples of laughter that greeted that statement suggest that his hon. Friends realise that fact. The hon. Gentleman should be able to understand the difference between the two.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North was concerned that the legislation might not be clear enough in respect of people turning up at meetings. I believe that the provision is as clear as it can be and enshrines the principle that a person taking part in policy-making decisions should be prepared to stand for election.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made the point in a number of ways that it would be implausible for the chief executive—a mere appointee—to be required to run for election. He suggested that on that basis a permanent secretary might also be expected to run for election. If the hon. Gentleman's logic were correct, which it is not, it would suggest that all trade union appointees spend their time scratching away with their quills in the back room, never seeing the light of day.

No doubt there are some who fit that description, but some appointed general secretaries have the highest profile in their unions and play a crucial part in directing policy. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, even though some of his hon. Friends do not, so he will appreciate at once that the mere fact of being an appointee does not mean that the person concerned can be compared with a mere chief executive or a mere permanent secretary. Again, the hon. Gentleman has pushed the analogy too far.

Mr. Allen

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Nicholls

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman so often in the past few weeks that I may as well allow him one last crack of the whip.

Mr. Allen

If the Minister is not prepared to concede that permanent secretaries should be elected, surely the person who sits in at Cabinet meetings, and gives far more than factual and technical advice — the Cabinet Secretary, formerly Sir Robert Armstrong—would be a prime candidate.

Mr. Nicholls

If one thing unites the hon. Gentleman and myself, it is the fact that neither of us has any experience of Cabinet government. However, if he discusses the subject with those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who are old enough to remember proceedings in the Labour Cabinet, he will appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary's role does not fit the analogy that he seeks to make.

It is always a pleasure to reply to a debate in which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has participated, as he speaks from a vast range of experience. His speech on this occasion seemed to centre around the proposition that the Government's proposals were outrageous and disgusting, and similar hyperbole. To Conservative Members, it is curious to hear the right hon. Gentleman describe in those terms the extension of the democratic process of election. One may argue about whether it is a good idea in the circumstances, but to describe a provision enabling people to vote for those who are to lead their union as an outrageous proposition sounded very much like a voice from the past. Without wishing to be unnecessarily cruel to the right hon. Gentleman, it did not even sound like a voice from the recent past.

Mr. Cryer

If the Minister is so dedicated to the spread of elections, why not start by having the chairman of the Conservative party elected?

Mr. Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman obviously was not all there a few moments ago when I replied to that point as expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Notthingham, North. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the difference between a trade union and a political party, it would take someone with vastly greater powers of persuasion than mine to make any dent in his view.

My final point should unite the whole House. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) sounded at first as though he was about to agree with the Government, then as though he was about to agree with the Labour party and in the end as though he did not even agree with himself. That is the kind of leadership that one expects from the element that he represents and was no doubt only to be expected, bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman is here partly in the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).

In conclusion, this is one of those issues on which one has to make up one's mind on a point of principle and decide where one stands. On that basis, I am afraid that the House will have to divide to decide where it stands.

12 midnight

Mr. Strang

The Minister's reply is unacceptable, and in some respects a step back from what was said in Committee. The trade unions are democratic, independent organisations, and that is the way that it should be in our society. It is a monstrous intrusion in their internal affairs to seek to lay down a particular pattern of their officers.

New section 6A(b) is not clear and there is no doubt — this, again, came out clearly in Committee — that many trade unions genuinely do not know which officers are covered by it and which are not. It is not simply a question whether they intend to participate in the committee. The wording is much more complicated than that. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment. Clause 12 is an outrageous and unjustified imposition on any trade union, and it should never have come before us.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 246.

Division No. 170] [12 midnight
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Foster, Derek
Allen, Graham Foulkes, George
Anderson, Donald Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Galbraith, Samuel
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack George, Bruce
Ashton, Joe Godman, Dr Norman A.
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Golding, Mrs Llin
Barron, Kevin Gordon, Ms Mildred
Battle, John Graham, Thomas
Beckett, Margaret Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Beggs, Roy Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bell, Stuart Grocott, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Hardy, Peter
Bermingham, Gerald Harman, Ms Harriet
Bidwell, Sydney Haynes, Frank
Blunkett, David Heffer, Eric S.
Boateng, Paul Henderson, Douglas
Boyes, Roland Hinchliffe, David
Bradley, Keith Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Holland, Stuart
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Home Robertson, John
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Buckley, George Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Caborn, Richard Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Callaghan, Jim Illsley, Eric
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Ingram, Adam
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Janner, Greville
Campbell-Savours, D. N. John, Brynmor
Canavan, Dennis Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Lambie, David
Clay, Bob Lamond, James
Clelland, David Leighton, Ron
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Cohen, Harry Lewis, Terry
Coleman, Donald Litherland, Robert
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Livingstone, Ken
Corbett, Robin Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cousins, Jim Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cox, Tom McAllion, John
Crowther, Stan McAvoy, Tom
Cryer, Bob McCartney, Ian
Cummings, J. Macdonald, Calum
Cunliffe, Lawrence McFall, John
Dalyell, Tam McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Darling, Alastair McKelvey, William
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) McLeish, Henry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) McNamara, Kevin
Dewar, Donald McTaggart, Bob
Dixon, Don Madden, Max
Dobson, Frank Mahon, Mrs Alice
Doran, Frank Marek, Dr John
Duffy, A. E. P. Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dunnachie, James Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Eadie, Alexander Martlew, Eric
Fatchett, Derek Maxton, John
Faulds, Andrew Meacher, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Meale, Alan
Flannery, Martin Michael, Alun
Flynn, Paul Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Sedgemore, Brian
Morgan, Rhodri Sheerman, Barry
Morley, Elliott Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie Short, Clare
Mullin, Chris Skinner, Dennis
Murphy, Paul Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Nellist, Dave Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
O'Brien, William Snape, Peter
O'Neill, Martin Steinberg, Gerald
Parry, Robert Stott, Roger
Patchett, Terry Strang, Gavin
Pendry, Tom Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pike, Peter Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Turner, Dennis
Prescott, John Walley, Ms Joan
Primarolo, Ms Dawn Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Radice, Giles Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Redmond, Martin Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Reid, John Wilson, Brian
Richardson, Ms Jo Winnick, David
Robertson, George Wise, Mrs Audrey
Robinson, Geoffrey Worthington, Anthony
Rogers, Allan Wray, James
Rooker, Jeff Young, David (Bolton SE)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted Tellers for the Ayes:
Ruddock, Ms Joan Mr. Frank Cook and
Salmond, Alex Mr. Allen Adams.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Cash, William
Alexander, Richard Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Allason, Rupert Cope, John
Amos, Alan Couchman, James
Arbuthnot, James Cran, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Currie, Mrs Edwina
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Davis, David (Boothferry)
Ashby, David Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Aspinwall, Jack Dover, Den
Atkins, Robert Durant, Tony
Atkinson, David Emery, Sir Peter
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Baldry, Tony Favell, Tony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Batiste, Spencer Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Fox, Sir Marcus
Bellingham, Henry Gale, Roger
Bendall, Vivian Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Gill, Christopher
Benyon, W. Gow, Ian
Bevan, David Gilroy Gower, Sir Raymond
Biffen, Rt Hon John Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Blackburn, Dr John G. Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Gregory, Conal
Boscawen, Hon Robert Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Boswell, Tim Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bottomley, Peter Grist, Ian
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Ground, Patrick
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Grylls, Michael
Bowis, John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Hampson, Dr Keith
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hannam, John
Brazier, Julian Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Bright, Graham Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Hawkins, Christopher
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick Hayes, Jerry
Buck, Sir Antony Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Budgen, Nicholas Hayward, Robert
Burns, Simon Heathcoat-Amory, David
Burt, Alistair Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carrington, Matthew Hind, Kenneth
Carttiss, Michael Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Holt, Richard Redwood, John
Hordern, Sir Peter Renton, Tim
Howard, Michael Rhodes James, Robert
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Riddick, Graham
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Roe, Mrs Marion
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Rost, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Rowe, Andrew
Hunter, Andrew Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Ryder, Richard
Irvine, Michael Sackville, Hon Tom
Jack, Michael Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Jackson, Robert Sayeed, Jonathan
Janman, Timothy Shaw, David (Dover)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Jones, Robert B (Herts W) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Key, Robert Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Knapman, Roger Shersby, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knowles, Michael Speed, Keith
Knox, David Speller, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Lang, Ian Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Latham, Michael Squire, Robin
Lawrence, Ivan Stanbrook, Ivor
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Steen, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Stern, Michael
Lightbown, David Stevens, Lewis
Lilley, Peter Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lord, Michael Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Sumberg, David
McCrindle, Robert Summerson, Hugo
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
McLoughlin, Patrick Taylor, John M (Solihull)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Madel, David Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Major, Rt Hon John Temple-Morris, Peter
Malins, Humfrey Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mans, Keith Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Marland, Paul Thornton, Malcolm
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Thurnham, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis Townend, John (Bridlington)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Tracey, Richard
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Tredinnick, David
Mills, Iain Trippier, David
Miscampbell, Norman Twinn, Dr Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW) Waldegrave, Hon William
Moate, Roger Walden, George
Morris, M (N'hampton S) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles Waller, Gary
Moss, Malcolm Ward, John
Neale, Gerrard Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Nelson, Anthony Warren, Kenneth
Neubert, Michael Watts, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Wells, Bowen
Nicholls, Patrick Wheeler, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Whitney, Ray
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W) Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Page, Richard Wiggin, Jerry
Paice, James Wilshire, David
Patnick, Irvine Winterton, Mrs Ann
Patten, Chris (Bath) Winterton, Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wolfson, Mark
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Wood, Timothy
Porter, David (Waveney) Woodcock, Mike
Portillo, Michael Young, Sir George (Acton)
Powell, William (Corby)
Price, Sir David Tellers for the Noes:
Raffan, Keith Mr. Stephen Dorrell and
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Mr. David Maclean

the person attempting to purchase a weapon or weapons is not

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Bill to be further considered this day.