Clause 1.—(FEE-CHARGING AGENCIES TO REQUIRE LICENCES OR AUTHORISATIONS.) (Hansard, 28 April 1967)

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from 'premises' to the end of line 13.

§ Mr. Speaker
We are taking, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38 to 55, 93 to 95, 100, 103 to 107, all in the name of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), and Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 10, 35 and 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

§ Mr. Jenkins
These Amendments delete from the Bill, provisions which were introduced in Committee for indefinite authorisation, without charge, of fee-charging agencies not carried on with a view to profit. They will render such agencies subject to the same requirement of annual licensing as profit-making agencies. Under the Bill as it stands, they are already subject to the same requirements of inspection and regulation.
1994 The Amendments are put forward to fulfil an undertaking given in Committee to hon. Members who argued that there should be no distinction between profit-making and non-profit making fee-charging agencies. They simplify the wording and the administration of the Bill, and the Bill reverts as it was when it was originally introduced. They are the first proposals to meet views put forward by hon. Members opposite in Committee.

§ Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)
May I ask for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me to mention one or two points of a broader nature which were raised in Committee?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. They can be as broad as the hon. Gentleman likes as long as they relate to the Amendments which we are discussing.

§ Mr. Page
Of course, Mr. Speaker.
This is a nostalgic step towards the Bill which was given a Second Reading. The Amendment removes the category of authorisation, a new category which was introduced into the Bill between Second Reading and the Committee stage. It is now to be eradicated.
A great many new categories and new Clauses were put into the Bill after Second Reading, and it became a new Bill. This is one of the Clauses which was put in and which, on second thoughts, has now been taken out. But to underline how much new stuff there is which we are able to discuss in the House compared with what we discussed on Second Reading, there were 17 new Clauses—

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to 17 new Clauses which have nothing to do with the Amendments we are considering.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will remain in charge of the Bill and Mr. Speaker will remain in charge of the House.

§ Mr. Page
I shall be very brief. This is part of one of the 17 new Clauses in the original Bill. There are only in the final Bill—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must now talk only about what we are omitting in these Amendments.

§ Mr. Page
I shall, Mr. Speaker.
As to the Amendment removing the category of authorisation, it is necessary to examine what was previously stated in the Bill. There are three categories of employment agency whose future is to be regulated under the Bill. There are fee-charging profit-making agencies, which are to be licensed. The proposal is to remove the second category, fee-charging non-profit-making agencies which were to be "authorised". The third category is non-fee-charging nonprofit-making employment agencies.
In Committee, the three categories were clearly outlined by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), the sponsor of the Bill, who made a particular point of showing which type would fall into the authorisation category. He said: As to the type of agency which will be allowed to apply for authorisation, rather than a licence, there is the University Appointments Boards which charge fees on occasions, and there are some Trade Union Employment Departments. Some trade unions run employment departments which do not seek to make a profit but which would come in as employment agencies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th October, 1966; c. 25.] We had the categories, the sheep and the goats, and the centre category that we are now discussing, the half-castes that one finds in Malta—the shoats, half sheep and half goats. The shoats are now to disappear.
What is interesting is to discover which employment agencies are now to be licensed and why, and which are merely to be registered, because registration has far fewer imposed penalties and restrictions than licensing. I should have thought that we should go quite clearly to the fact that the very small number of non-profit-making non-fee-charging employment agencies should be the only ones for which registration would be needed rather than licensing. But it is interesting to note that the only speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary on the last day of the Committee stage was to propose an Amendment to the definition Clause which redefined what a fee-charging employment agency was. I wonder why at that final moment the last Amendment to be presented and discussed—

§ Mr. Speaker
With respect, this is not an easy debate to control. We cannot debate that Amendment to the definition on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Page
I would not debate it, Mr. Speaker. I would just point out that because of that last Amendment, and only because of it, one can find trade unions and employers' associations excluded from the category which would be authorised.
It seems to my hon. Friends and myself that it is unnecessary to have these groups—university and trade union employment departments and employment departments of professional bodies—excluded from the point of view of licensing. They carry out a large number of placings. If the object of the Bill is not merely to control for the sake of controlling, but to improve the services available to people who wish to change their job, it would seem to us that as many as possible should be licensed rather than registered.
There is no reason why, it seems to me, the Salvation Army, which runs a fee-charging non-profit-making appointments service should have to be licensed whereas the Institution of Mechanical Engineers merely requires to be registered. Why should the Corps of Commissionaires have to be licensed while the Transport and General Workers' Union employment department would only be registered? There seems to be no real logic why there should be a distinction of this type.
I wonder whether it is possible for us to find out from the hon. Member for Putney whether the other sponsors of the Bill, who include my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) have been consulted by the hon. Member about this. Their names remain on the list of sponsors. It would be interesting to know whether the ordinary courtesies by a private Member who has purported to seek all-party support for a Bill have been observed in this instance.
While I do not wish to divide the House on the Bill, it is difficult to welcome the Amendment, because as a result of the Amendment to the definitions Clause to which I have already referred very few organisations are covered by this Amendment anyway. However, this is a step nearer the original Bill, and for that at least we must be thankful.

§ Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether, in your 1997 selection of the Amendment, you would be prepared to consider allowing us to discuss with these Amendments, No. 118 in Clause 21, page 13, line 25, leave out or authorisation'. Clause 21 is the interpretation Clause and it defines a "holder" as being the holder in relation to the licence or authorisation. The general purpose of these Amendments we are now discussing is to eliminate authorisation altogether. It would seem, therefore, that we ought also to consider the altering of the interpretation to be consistent with these Amendments.

§ Mr. Speaker
According to my note I have already selected that for discussion with these. I see that it is not on the duplicated list. The question whether, for the reasons the hon. Member has suggested, we do take Amendment No. 118 with this batch of Amendments, since it deals with authorisation, is a question for the House, and especially the sponsor of the Bill.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
I would raise no objection.

§ Mr. Speaker
No objection is taken by anybody.

§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)
I want to raise only one point at this stage. I was not a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, but I do not think that this stage of the Bill, on the Floor of the House, is only for hon. Members who were on the Committee. This list of Amendments was not available until five or six minutes before we started discussion of them. I have one or two points to raise in the course of the debate. They have been put to me in the last few weeks while this Bill was being considered.
In this debate a very large number of Amendments are being considered, some of which the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has put down, others which my hon. Friends have put down. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney, in moving the Amendment, did it in a very perfunctory manner, which to me conveyed nothing of the effect on the Bill of the acceptance of all these Amendments. I would put it to him, for the benefit of those of us who were not on the Committee and who have subsequently had representations made 1998 about the Bill, that he should take into account that we saw this list only five minutes before we came into the Chamber and that that raises great difficulties for us. I am sure that if he will explain the effect on the Bill of the acceptance of these Amendments, that will save time in the long run and clear up the matter for those of us who have not had the advantage of being on the Standing Committee.

§ Mr. Michael Heseltine (Tavistock)
This Amendment was promised in Committee and welcome, so far as it goes, to some of us on this side of the House. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) will be helped by one or two examples which I should like to give.
The Bill as it stands would have the effect of including within its purview organisations which seem to me wholly desirable organisations which one could regard, at least on a superficial examination, as doing a good job which they can be relied upon to do, but the Bill excludes certain organisations about which I am not altogether sure we could say the same.
For example, among the organisations within the purview of the Bill now will be the Danish Y.W.C.A., which is, obviously, part of a worldwide and highly renowned organisation, part of whose occupation—only a very small part, but, nevertheless, a part—is to place au pair girls and to charge fees for that. It may well be that we feel there should be some control, but my concern is why there may be some people left outside the control, and I should like to probe a little deeper to see why, by these Amendments, they should be left outside.
We come, first, to the British Legion. That, also, is an organisation beyond reproach and doing an absolutely first-class job for a very large number of ex-Servicemen, for whom it finds jobs, and it charges fees, not, I think, to the ex-Servicemen, but to the employers. That would bring the Legion within the purview of the Bill. The Bill brings within its purview organisations charging fees, whether the fee is charged to the employee or the employer. Therefore, the British Legion would have to account for itself to the inspectorate which is to be set up.
1999 There are other organisations dealing with ex-Service people, the Corps of Commissionaires and the United Services Corps. These organisations do an absolutely first-class job in finding civilian occupations for people leaving the Services, and they add great distinction to the City of London, and some of the provincial cities, in the work they do. These, also, provide, on a fee-charging basis, jobs for their members, so they would come within the purview of this Bill.
There are the over-forties and over-forty-fives organisations, which have got, I think, very real social as well as economic justifications. They charge fees to their members, and they would come within the purview of this Bill.
Another organisation of this sort is the Seniors' Association, which, I believe, operates in Liverpool and does a very valuable operation. Then there are certain scholastic organisations, such as Gabbitas-Thring, another nationally-known and highly respected organisation which comes within the purview of the Bill, and will, therefore, find itself controlled and inspected by the Minister's machinery when it is set up. We have heard something also about appointments boards.
It may well be that the purpose of the Bill is so wide as to raise the standards of employment agencies and those which are even quasi-employment agents—

§ Captain W. Elliot
There are various officers' associations which help with the employment of ex-officers, and to which a subscription is made. That is not the only thing they do. They look after pensions, and that sort of thing. Will they come within the purview of the Bill?

§ Mr. Heseltine
They will come within the purview of the Bill. The subscription is not disregarded unless it can be shown that it is not in respect of some sort of placement operation. That is how we are bringing all these organisations within the purview of the Bill. That was a point which worried some of us on this side of the House who supported the Bill as it was originally.
What we are concerned about now is why certain organisations are to be ex- 2000 cluded, and that is the point which has been brought out by this Amendment. That is why one asks questions in the hope that there may be an explanation for the benefit of those who are worried about this at the moment. I think that if there is an examination of the organisations which are to be excluded in the fog will immediately evaporate, because first and foremost of the people to be excluded may be trade unions, as well as professional associations.
I myself have never been satisfied by anything I have heard either in debates in the Standing Committee or before that that those organisations have any claim, in the face of competition from, say, the Danish Young Women's Christian Association, or from the over-forties and over-forty-fives, to be citadels beyond the purview—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Not on this Amendment. The hon. Member can ask for the Danish Young Women's Christian Association to be excluded. He cannot, on this Amendment, argue for unions not to be excluded.

§ Mr. Heseltine
I accept fully that that is right. He cannot ask for them to be excluded. But the fact is that they are excluded and, in bringing within the operations of the Bill the sorts of organisations which I have mentioned, I want to know why they are included, while others are still outside.

§ Mr. John Ellis (Bristol, North-West)
I am trying to follow the argument closely, but the point is that this legisalation has been brought in because there have been excesses in this sphere of activity. I am interested in this, being a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Bill would not have been necessary—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech.

§ Mr. Ellis
Mr. Speaker, I want—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am warning the hon. Gentleman for his own good. If an intervention becomes a speech, he will lose the right to speak again as we are at Report stage. If he seeks to make a brief intervention, he may.

§ Mr. Ellis
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you believe that there are any—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to believe anything. He must observe proper Parliamentary form. He must ask the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine).

§ Mr. Ellis
I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there are any excesses or matters which the Bill ought to take care of and which are to be excluded in this way?

§ Mr. Heseltine
I welcome that question, because we are aware that, in any form of industrial organisation, there are likely to be excesses. I would never say that the trades unions are less guilty of excesses than the private sector. Any form of industrial organisation which is subject to human behaviour is likely to produce excesses, and I welcome the Bill because in some parts it is seeking to control those excesses, though only in some parts.
What we are concerned about is that the excesses of one part of the community are to be controlled and that any potential excesses of the other part of the community are to be left outside the Bill. We are anxious to ask questions which may not be in order, so I shall not labour the point, but what is the sort of development which we might anticipate from the trade unions? I think that—

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understood what I told him just now. We are discussing a series of Amendments which take out the authorisation of bodies not making a profit. He can plead that those should be treated in the way which he wants. He cannot plead on these Amendments that trades unions and professional organisations should be brought in.

§ Mr. Heseltine
I take that point, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise. Like the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), I may have been sidetracked in the question which I was seeking to answer. I will not go on with that point.
Our concern is that we are to have standards applied to the organisations which I have listed, and we question whether they alone should be brought within the Bill. If they are, it should be made to apply throughout. It is on that point that we should welcome the com- 2002 meats of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins.)

§ Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)
There were three categories of agent. As I understand, if these Amendments are accepted, there will be two categories of agent. For the benefit of the House, perhaps I might say that the three categories were the fee-charging profit-making, the fee-charging non-profit making, and the non-fee-charging non-profit-making. The effect of this group of Amendments would be to leave out the non-fee-charging nonprofit-making from the provisions of the Bill, with the exception of Clause 12, but to apply the full rigours of the Bill to the first two categories.
I think that it is right to include the first two categories in the Bill, but I am sure that it is wrong to leave out the third category. If we are to make regulations for agents, I believe that they should apply to all agents. The "fiddling" with the definitions which has been taking place does not appeal to me.
When, in Committee, we discussed whether the authorisations should be amalgamated with the licence, the hon. Lady who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry gave the following reason why it was an unfortunate thing to do. She said: We do not feel it appropriate to bring in the whole of the regulations compulsorily to apply to non-fee-charging agencies, some of which are a very small part of a major business organisation, such as a trade union. Later, she said: I hope that hon. Members will accept the assurance that the Ministry will use such powers should they be required but that it would not be appropriate to apply the regulations for fee-charging agencies to those which are not fee-charging and which, in some cases, are a very tiny part of a larger organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th October, 1966; c. 33.] With respect, that was a very weak argument. Because the employment bureau of an organisation was only a small part of that organisation, to claim that it should be treated differently was something for which many of my hon. Friends could see no reason. We are glad that the point of view there expressed has been changed.
On the other hand, I want to ask one specific question, because there is still 2003 some doubt as to who will be included and who excluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) has given the House the names of a number of organisations which will be brought within the full ambit of the Bill. It seems to me that it might bring into the Bill some of the trades unions.
Within the last few weeks, I understand that Equity has applied for a licence to set up an employment agency under the present law affecting London as administered by the London boroughs. That is because it intends to charge some sort of fee for placements in London. I may be wrong about it, but I understand that the Westminster City authorities have requested Equity to take out a licence, and it would, therefore, be controlled under the law as it now stands.
If that is so, by accepting these Amendments, would the effect be to allow Equity to continue its employment agency business without registering and taking out a licence under the Bill? Clearly it would be a deleterious step to allow Equity to escape, when the point of passing the Bill would be to bring all agents and persons engaged in employment agency work within the scope of the Bill. Even if my report is not true and Equity is not setting up in business as an employment agent, the hypothetical case is sufficiently strong to require clarification from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) before we pass these Amendments.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
Surely Equity could only do this if there was no consideration for the services which it provides for its members other than the subscription to the union itself under the definition in Clause 21?

§ Mr. Ridley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. This is one of my doubts.
The definition Clause, Clause 21, specifically excludes trades unions or recognised professional associations from the controls in the Bill. It is quite clear that it means to exclude trades unions, and I imagine that the effect of passing the Bill will be that, whereas Equity is now to be controlled in respect of the use of its premises as an employment agency, after the passing of the Bill it can set up staff bureaux all over the country without any control. That requires some explanation from the hon. Member.
2004 Otherwise, the Amendments are generally to be welcomed. They move in the direction which my hon. Friends and I desire. In the circumstances, I can with confidence advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendments.

§ Mr. Speaker
I understand that with this group of Amendments we are taking the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—Nos. 4, 9, 10, 35 and 36.

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will probably agree that if my Amendments are agreed to the Amendments in his name will fall. That is subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is why I thought the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury might wish to say a word about his Amendments at this stage.

§ Mr. Ridley
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is quite right. Those of my Amendments which are included in the group that we have been discussing where, although perhaps less well drafted, designed to secure roughly the same objects as those in the name of the hon. Member for Putney. In that case, I do not intend to move my Amendments.

§ Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)
It is difficult for a newcomer to grasp the effect of the immense batch of Amendments with which we are dealing, for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). Nevertheless, if I have understood correctly the lucid explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), we are unanimously and with alacrity fixing these obligations upon the middle group of agencies—because we fear that they will otherwise in some way escape the duties which the Bill seeks to place upon them—but we are not fixing any such obligations upon the third group, that is to say, those who genuinely extract no money and also those who, although they extract money, are not deemed to be fee-charging, for the reasons given in the definition Clause.
My only fear about this worthy object is that organisations in the middle group will, if they have any sense, get into the third group. No difficulty is involved 2005 in any such organisation transforming itself into a trade union. The definition of a trade union under our law is extremely wide and lax. It is any association between men and men, masters and masters, or masters and men, under the 1870 and 1876 legislation. There is no need for registration if it is not desired to have an obligation for registration in respect of the holding of property and things of that sort.
I would have thought that all the worthy associations referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) could easily get into the third category and thus escape all except the Clause 12 obligation.

§ 0Mr. Hugh Jenkins
It would probably be out of order for me to go into great detail about the third group of organisations referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Although he said that he found the Bill complex and difficult, which it is, he has shown a clear grasp of the three categories into which the Bill divides agencies. Since the Amendments in themselves do not refer to the third category it would be better for me to answer his questions at a later stage.
As for the other two categories, I did not think it wrong to make an intermediate category, but some hon. Members argued persuasively against it. They felt it right that all fee-charging agencies should be put into the same group, and should all have to pay a licence fee. The only reason why I found myself able to accept that proposition was that I was advised, with Treasury concurrence, that it would be within the Minister's powers under a later Clause to fix a lower licence fee for charitable bodies. With that assurance I felt it right to accept the proposition that all agencies should be put into the same category.
Some charitable bodies—and I am not referring to trade unions—do the sort of job referred to by the hon. Member opposite purely as a side-line, and it would be wrong to make them pay a fee which, although it might seem small to a large business organisation would be quite a large fee for a small organisation.

§ Mr. John Page
Is the hon. Member saying that there should be a variation in the fees chargeable for licences, graduated as between charities or bodies similar to charities, and other bodies? If so, why have registration category at all? Why not make everybody pay a licence fee, but allow for variations in the fee?

§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins
We can deal with that question when we come to the third category. I must confine myself to the two categories which come within these Clauses. All voluntary bodies, such as old people's welfare associations, which place old people in part-time jobs, should be charged a purely nominal fee. The Amendments accept the views put forward by hon. Members opposite in Committee, and it is therefore not necessary for me to spend a great deal of time on them. They have been explained quite clearly by hon. Members who have spoken in support of them. I shall try to deal with the critical remarks that have been made—which do not apply to these Amendments—when we come to the Clauses to which those remarks were addressed.