HC Deb 22 March 1971 vol 814 cc133-78
(1) An application for entry in the special register may be made by any organisation to the registrar in such form and manner as the registrar may require.
5 (2) Together with any such application there shall be sent to the registrar a copy of the rules of the organisation, a list of its officers, and the names and addresses of its 5 branches (if any)
(3) If on any such application the registrar is satisfied—
10 (a) that the organisation is eligible for entry in the special register by virtue of section (Organisation eligible for entry in special register) (3) of this Act, and
(b) that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with, the registrar, on payment of a fee of £25 or such other amount as may be prescribed, shall enter the organisation in the special register as an organisation of workers other than a federation of workers' organisations, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.
15 (4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the condition specified in section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) (3)(b) of this Act, the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation, whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association, or (as the case may be) its charter or letters patent, or not.
20 (5) If on an application under this section the registrar is satisfied—
(a) that the organisation is eligible for entry in this special register by virtue of section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) (4) of this Act, and
(b) that the requirements of subsection (2) of this section have been complied with,
25 the registrar, on payment of a fee of £25 or such other amount as may be prescribed, shall enter the organisation in the special register as a federation of workers' organisations, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dudley Smith

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

With the new Clause it will be convenient to take for debate the Opposion Amendment No. 240, in Schedule 3, page 124, leave out paragraph 23.

Mr. Smith

The Clause is a necessary adjunct of new Clause 8. I understand and accept that the Opposition are opposed to the whole of these proposals, but I am sure that they will agree that if new Clause 8 stands there must be the right interpretation, and that comes in the proposed Clause.

The Clause specifies the procedure for registering an organisation in the special register. Subsection (1) authorises the registrar to determine the form and manner of the application. Subsection (2) lists the information which must accompany it. Subsection (3) requires the registrar to register an organisation which complies with those requirements and which is otherwise eligible, and also prescribes the fee to be paid. Subsection (4) requires the registrar to have regard to the activities of an organisation in determining its eligibility for inclusion in the special register. Subsection (5) makes provisions for the registration of a federation on the special register which are broadly similar to those in subsection (3).

The procedure for making application for entry in the special register is very much the same as that set out in Clause 64, which makes provisions for the registration of a trade union. But there are two differences. First, subsection (2) of the proposed Clause does not require the organisation to submit a financial statement with its application. This is because the requirement is related to the requirement in Clause 81 to submit annual returns to the Registrar, from which organisations on the special register are also excluded. They are subject to similar requirements under the Companies Act or under their charter, so the interests of their members are protected in that way.

8.15 p.m.

The second difference from the provisions for ordinary trade union registration is contained in subsection (4) of new Clause 9, which provides that, in determining the organisation's eligibility for registration, … the registrar shall have regard to the activities … and not those stated in its constitution. As we have explained, the special register is intended to accommodate organisations which do not have the regulation of relations with employers as a principal objective although they are involved in negotiations as an important subsidiary activity. In these circumstances the constitution of the organisation is unlikely to yield a clear reference to the activity. I emphasise again that these new provisions have emerged from consultations which have taken place with a number of organisations. We were accused earlier by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) of having brought these provisions forward with a good deal of secrecy, but they were well known. We were not responsible for the Press reports.

These were democratic representations. It was well known that there were anxieties among many hon. Members, certainly among many of my hon. Friends, about some of these organisations, and there were detailed consultations. These organisations would like to register in order to safeguard their present negotiating position, and we believe that it is right that the machinery should be provided for them. New Clause 9 provides further machinery following new Clause 8.

Mr. Rose

It the hon. Gentleman saying that even though these activities do not legitimately form part of their charters and are not within the scope of their charters, they are to be allowed to carry on these activities without amending the charters?

Mr. Dudley Smith

It is open to them to take advice as to where they stand before making application. I understand that we can debate this in detail later on an Opposition Amendment.

We believe it right that these provisions should be made for organisations which otherwise would not be able to qualify under the ordinary register, and that, therefore, they will help towards better industrial relations for all those who have at heart the interests of their own workers, whether they be white-collar or blue-collar workers.

Mr. Sillars

I oppose new Clause 9. No doubt some hon. Members opposite will regard what I am going to say as boring repetition of what has been said already by the Opposition. Nevertheless I again accuse the Government of having a class bias which is shown in new Clauses 8, 9 and 10. I put their claim that there is no such class bias in the same category as the claim of the Secretary of State that the Bill is fair and reasonable and the claim of the Prime Minister in June that he would reduce prices at a stroke—which was one of the biggest political whoppers in our history.

If the right hon. Gentleman wonders why people in the trade union movement are so annoyed by the Bill he need look no further than our attitude towards new Clauses 8, 9 and 10. All three Clauses exhibit the class bias of the Tory Party very clearly.

I am bound to say to some trade unionists outside this Chamber who may have abstained or even voted Conservative at the election that it should come as no surprise to them to discover that the Government have class bias towards trade unionists, because it was exhibited on every sticker on every Tory agent's car during the campaign. The stickers showed only one-quarter of the Union Jack, and not the whole of the Union Jack as they used to.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument but I do not understand what he means by referring to one-half of the Union Jack.

Mr. Sillars

I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been aware of the fact that the Tory Party's election stickers showed only one-quarter of the Union Jack—not one half—whereas they used to use the whole of the Union Jack a few years ago.

Mr. Murray

Would my hon. Friend accept that the Tory badge was the Union Jack hung, drawn and quartered?

Mr. Sillars

It was certainly a clear sign of the Tory Party's strategy to rule by dividing the people. The Government intend to divide unfairly between professional and what they term "working-class" people. As the ownership of capital has become divorced from management over the years, some of the old informal barriers have been broken down by good and militant trade unionists such as Clive Jenkins and his organisation, the A.S.T.M.S., and D.A.T.A. The Government now find it necessary to try to divide the movement —I use that word in broad terms—in a more formal manner. These three new Clauses are part of that strategy. They are deliberately attempting to divide professional people and certain very important categories from other sections of the people who sell their labour to live.

The practical effect of the Bill is that if people want to operate in an industrial situation, in so far as they are concerned with the regulation of conditions between workers and employers they must operate under a licence. Some are obviously to have a special licence. A kind of industrial apartheid is being created by the Bill through these three new Clauses.

It may well be that, on examination of the Bill, we shall find that the Government intend to give only a slight advantage to organisations going on the special register. But in my view there is a distinct organisational advantage, certainly in the short term and probably in the long term as well. We must bear in mind the character of the special organisations which the Government are setting up and the character of the special register and understand where they stand in relation to the share-out of wealth and the social status accorded to them by what I term, in my naive Left-wing Socialist way, as the "Establishment".

Organisations such as the British Medical Association are likely to be the ones least bothersome, certainly to a Conservative Government and to anybody orientated in the Conservative manner. They are the easiest people to deal with because of their affinity to the Establishment. One need cite no further evidence than the treatment given to the doctors as opposed to the dockers within the same industrial and financial context last year and the treatment given to the judges compared with that accorded by Conservative Ministers, certainly in their verbal onslaught, to the dustmen.

It may be that the problem involved in the setting-up of the special register lies in the fact that we are likely to get another industrial relations Bill from the Government—a Mark II version. It is already being spoken about by certain supporters of the Tory Party outside this House. That is one of the things which worry me about the future. I do not believe that this Bill will resolve industrial disputes, an as the problem is not solved, then the logic of the Conservative Party will be to tighten the screw even further by introducing a second industrial relations Bill coming down even harder than this one on what we regard as the bona fide organised trade union movement. Perhaps some hon. Members will say then, "There have been two sorts of registered union. The special ones have behaved themselves, so they may remain untouched and, indeed, we might loosen then the bonds somewhat. But we must tighten the screw on the others." They may help the B.M.A. at the expense of the A.S.T.M.S., for example.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) is enjoying himself laughing at the moment. We shall have to see which of us is right. I think that I probably am on the right lines in forecasting what will happen. I am sure that I shall be proved more correct than he is. The mere fact that there are to be two types of trade union under the Bill will allow the Government to reward their friends for good behaviour. It is fanciful to suggest that the present Government are incapable of underhand or unfair industrial or social practices. A Government which would steal milk from primary school children are capable of many things. It is a fair point to make that if they are capable of that they are capable of many things. They are capable of working on and expanding their class bias, which is contained now in the special register.

The Government's basic attitude towards respectable, professional middle-class organisations compared with non-respectable working-class organisations can be found in the different approaches they take towards them in the Bill, particularly in new Clauses 9 and 11. I do not want to discuss tomorrow's business, when new Clause 11 comes up, but one must refer to it in passing. The Government should not be surprised that we doubt the sincerity of their view that they are setting up the special register for no underhand reason.

Why, for example, are we not to have a provisional special register so that organisations going on the special register would be subject to the same deep scrutiny which other organisations will be which are going on the ordinary register? The use of the word "special" is also most unfortunate. The Solicitor-General is not here at the moment but one need not explain to a lawyer how important words are, certainly in this Bill. Earlier, the hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the bias in Clause 64(4)(b) against what we would term as the trade unions will be removed by an Amendment which the Secretary of State has later on. The hon. and learned Gentleman believed that he had conclusively proved that both types of organisation, special and unspecial, were equal before the Registrar.

But the true comparison in the Government's treatment of both sets of organisation lies in new Clauses Nos. 9 and 11. New Clause 11 deals with the transfer from the provisional register to the full register, and springs from Clause 74. It is obvious to me that it is in the Government's mind that before trade unions get on the full register they must pass through the provisional register. The relevant provisions and new Clause state that the registrar shall, as soon as he can, construct a special register. Clause 74 states that he shall construct a provisional register. Nowhere in the Bill does it say that as soon as it is passed he shall set up a full register.

I listened carefully to the Solicitor-General, and I am sure that he said that a trade union should first pass through the provisional register before going on the full register. There are words in Clause 74 which lend weight to what I am saying. It would seem to be in the Government's mind that the union should first go on the provisional register. The second move is made under new Clause 11(2), which deals with the power of the Registrar to scrutinise the trade union's rules and to demand amendments if he thinks fit under the threat of cancellation.

8.30 p.m.

New Clause 9 is entirely different. It submits the so-called special organisations to a very simple test. It deals with the respectable, middle-class organisations. It is implicit in the new Clause that mere application to go on the special register is sufficient to get on it. I do not put very much credence in the say- ing words in the new Clause quoted by the Under-Secretary of State.

Subsection (4) of new Clause 9 provides: In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the conditions specified in another Clause the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation, whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association, or … its charter or letters patent, or not". That is a very simple test and a very narrow criterion. It is entirely different from that applied under new Clause 11(2), where the bona fide trade union is subjected to the suspicion that there is something wrong with its rules and they must be scrutinised and it will be given only qualified approval. This is clear evidence of class bias.

I said that I would refer to what I regard as the organisational advantages deliberately given to organisations on the special register as opposed to those on the ordinary register. Clause 76 deals with the trade union organisation which is on the provisional register. It will be regarded as a registered organisation only for the purposes of Parts V to VII and of Clause 139. It is in respect of other areas that my hon. Friends have pointed to the organisational dangers—the parts dealing with the right to determine the sole bargaining agent.

On Report, new Clause 6 very subtly but importantly altered the basis on which an application could be made to the Industrial Court. Previously, under Clause 42, the employer, trade union or Secretary of State could independently make an application, but, as the Bill is amended by new Clause 6, a joint application can be made by the trade union and the employers. It is here that we are most concerned about the ability of the organisation on the special register to take distinct organisational advantage in so far as it can pre-empt any other trade union from becoming an applicant for the sole bargaining agency.

In Amendments which the Government have introduced to Clause 46, nothing precludes the provisionally registered trade union or the unregistered trade union from making application for sole bargaining rights, but it must apply for full registration before it can become sole bargaining agent. The Government have deliberately placed obstacles in the way of bona fide trade unions. That is why I am against new Clauses 8, 9 and 10.

Amendment No. 240 is placed almost last, but on this occasion I hope that the last will be first. The Amendment seeks to delete the discretionary powers given in Schedule 3 to the Registrar. In case my words should be misunderstood outside the Chamber, I make it clear that the Labour Party is opposed to the whole Schedule and also to the special register and the ordinary register. Nevertheless, we have examined the Schedule, but we do not think that the Registrar's powers of exemption should be allowed to continue into legislation. Paragraph 23 could be used in conjunction with the special position of people on the special register to give a distinct advantage to organisations on that register as opposed to bona fide trade unions.

When certain organisations of a special character are singled out for a special register, it must be clear that the Registrar will be entitled, in interpreting the Bill, to believe that he can operate the escape or exemption clause on their behalf as opposed to the bona fide trade union—

Mr. Gower

Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that paragraph 23 could be used by the registrar with benefit to a trade union whose application failed for a technical reason? Might it not, therefore, be damaging to a trade union applicant if paragraph 23 were removed from the Schedule?

Mr. Sillars

It could be if paragraph 23 were worded differently so as to allow for technical exemptions. As paragraph 23 is worded, it does not allow for technical exemptions but puts a wide-ranging power of exemption into the hands of the Registrar.

The thread of the philosophy of the Bill from the point where we mark out the code of practice gives a clear guideline to the registrar that he shall subject bona fide trade unions to the utmost scrutiny, because the criteria applying to them are different from the criteria applying to the organisations on the special register. In my view, the registrar is likely to use his exemption powers in relation to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Schedule in terms of exemption of people on the special register.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I think that the registrar will treat those on the special register so differently from the unions on the normal register as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has suggested. This may have been said before —I have not been present in the Chamber all the time—but we seem to be taking an unconscionable time discussing what to me is a less controversial part of the Bill. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had been arguing that there should not be a special register, I imagine that he would have met much criticism from his hon. Friends with profesional interests who were pressing for some difference to be made in respect of their organisations—

Mr. Heffer

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost every back bencher on the Government side who has spoken has made this point about the length of time which has been spent on these Clauses. I can only assume that they were well briefed on this matter before coming to the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get on to the other Clauses, he need not speak on this one.

Mr. Lewis

I shall be brief, but I see no reason why I should hesitate to make a comment in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite. I will simply briefly follow the speech made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He said that there was a difference between professional organisations and trade unions. Of course there is a difference now between many professional organisations and trade unions. There is no great change except, I should have thought, a change to the advantage of hon. Members opposite, in that professional organisations, which at present are right outside whatever trade union legislation there is, are now at least brought into the Bill, and are caught in many directions. The fact that they are on a special register which recognises their problems does not put them outside the Bill. They are still within the Bill.

The Royal College of Nursing, for example, has always been the negotiating body within the hospitals and it was never militant until two or three years ago, when it had to be militant because there was a certain amount of recruitment taking place within hospitals, giving it competition. It is, therefore, on this special register because its set-up is rather different from the kind of organisation which is competing with it, quite properly, within hospitals, on wages and on conditions of work and so on. The work of the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association is to be covered for wages and salaries by a setup which is to be created within the Department.

These organisations have functions outside the normal union bargaining activities and even wider than negotiations on conditions of service. It is clearly because of this that they are on a special register and have asked to be put on a special register. It is for that reason that pressure was put on Members of Parliament to do this.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said several times that this was a class situation being created by the Government. He spoke about the white collar workers and professional workers against the working class. Does he really believe that the professional worker today, or the white collar worker, would allow himself to be put into the position where he is told that he is not a worker? He is certainly not a bloated capitalist. He is negotiating his wages and salaries in the same way as any worker. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is a young man. He is old-fashioned. He has not come up to date. He ought to recognise that the future of the trade union movement will be advanced only if it brings the white collar and professional workers within its own ambit and if it can influence them to join these unions. This is what the dispute taking place within the T.U.C. is about. The T.U.C. will remain strong and develop only if it can influence the people the hon. Gentleman has just defined as being related to class—

Mr. Orme

That is the very point we were making earlier. The hon. Gentleman has said that he has not been present all the time. The point was that the T.U.C. were coming to grips with this and were encouraging professional and white collar workers, to broaden the whole base. The Bill and this Clause are narrowing it.

Mr. Lewis

The particular bodies requested that they should have a special register and that their problems should be dealt with within this register. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that if the T.U.C. and the manual workers' unions do not recognise that those people have special problems, they will never get them working with them. They must recognise these problems to obtain their co-operation.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

I admire the hon. Gentleman's grand efforts, because he always seems deliberately to miss the point. N.A.L.G.O., N.U.T., N.U.P.E. and A.S.T.M.S. are affiliated to the T.U.C. None of these organisations has asked for a special register. All that these organisations have asked for is to be treated like every other union. They represent the professional classes. They are not asking for special treatment. They are merely asking that they as legitimate trade unions should not be put into a situation different from the others which are asking for a special register.

Mr. Lewis

I agree that the organisations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are members of the T.U.C. at present. They are only just members, because they are not sure whether they will remain so. They take a rather different view of the Bill from that taken by some other unions.

I again emphasise that unless the T.U.C. and hon. Members opposite representing the large unions within that organisation are prepared to accept differences which must be recognised between some of these other unions, most of which are smaller than the unions which have large memberships—[Laughter.]—they will lose them. Hon. Members opposite can laugh, but I am not making this up on the spur of the moment. These organisations have already indicated that they may leave the T.U.C. if they do not get recognition. I agree that not all of the professional or white-collar unions are relative to the special register, but some are. Some of those representing a field for future recruitment are. Many members of unions already affiliated to the T.U.C. will not take kindly to some of the viewpoints expressed by hon. Members opposite today.

In so far as it is desirable for unions of the white-collar type to co-operate with the other unions, it would help to achieve that end if hon. Members opposite would recognise some of the problems that they have. The setting up of a special register will help towards eliminating those problems.

Mr. Sillars

The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to the need for the trade unions to understand that white-collar and professional organisations want to co-operate. When representatives of the B.M.A. came to see him about the Bill, did he advise them to co-operate with the trade unions and especially with the T.U.C? The hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of nonsense when he says that N.A.L.G.O. and N.U.T. have threatened to withdraw from the T.U.C.

Mr. Lewis

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. I did not say that those organisations had threatened. I said that, as I understood it, they had indicated that their line was somewhat different from that taken by other unions as reported from Croydon and that, unless they were at the end of the day allowed to take their own line on the Bill—

Mr. Heffer

On registration?

Mr. Lewis

Yes, on registration and what follows from it—they could no longer necessarily go along with the T.U.C. We are living in an industrial society that is becoming more and more sophisticated. The gap between the so-called working-class members of the unions and the white collar workers is scarcely discernible. It is almost nonexistent in terms of salary, type of work, and responsibility. My hon. Friends and I accept that fact. I hope that hon. Members opposite will also accept it; some of their speeches do not indicate that they accept it. One would have thought that we were back in the days when most people wore cloth caps and the rest were members of a privileged community which had no association with them. That distinction no longer applies.

I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should be so concerned that the Minister is doing something to help professional bodies and similar organisations which have special problems.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

The debate has been rather unreal. It seems clear that the proposal deals with special circumstances. There exist bodies of people who may come within the provisions of the Bill but whom no one would call trade unions. Various developments have brought into being, on the one hand, trade unions representing people who serve under contracts of service and, on the other, associations representing people who are engaged under contracts for services—a distinction that has always existed in this country.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is wrong to attack the Government for introducing class distinction. The Government are not doing so. If he were attacking them for their policy on the social services—much more sinister than anything in the Bill—I would agree with him.

These distinctions have existed for a long time; they have been created not because of the existence of different classes but because of the enormous differences in conditions under which workers and professional people have had to struggle for recognition. Their historical backgrounds are totally different. I can understand the aim of a party which hopes to use trade unions for political purposes, and wants to draw all professional bodies under the aegis of the Trades Union Congress, because that would give it a greater hold on those organisations. That was the motivation behind the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He referred to the Establishment.

The longer I listen to this debate the more I become convinced that the trade unions are in great danger of taking up the intolerant attitude that was adopted by the Established Church in the 18th century. They are developing a similar belief that everybody must conform, everybody must subscribe, and everybody must come under their aegis.

Mr. Orme

The hon. and learned Member has referred to the width of expression. The T.U.C. has that. People from boiler-makers to town clerks are covered by unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Therefore, why cannot we include the doctors and the nurses?

Mr. Hooson

I have no doubt that the T.U.C. would eventually like to take the place of this House in terms of running the country.

We are discussing a quite simple proposal to deal with problems about which all hon. Members have been made aware by various bodies whose members are not sure whether they come under the umbrella of the professional organisations or are in danger of being subjected to the same rules as the trade unions. This proposal offers a practical solution to a practical problem.

Mr. Gower

I find it difficult to understand how right hon. and hon. Members opposite can disagree with the kind of argument that we have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). But their case breaks down even on their own arguments. This machinery is devised to meet the requirements of special organisations of a somewhat different character—

Mr. Murray

The hon. Gentleman has immediately used the word "special". Can he explain why a body like the N.U.S., which is acknowledged to have special problems, is not to be entered on the special register when other bodies are to be?

Mr. Gower

The hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues have been trying to establish, in my view quite without foundation, that this has some sort of class basis—

Mr. Murray

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gower

If that were the case, one would expect to find nurses and bank officers in a similar category. They are not. The development of the Royal College of Nursing has been on a rather different basis from that of the development of the bank officers' organisation. The bank officers happened to develop as an orthodox trade union although they were engaged in a service industry of a kind which, until recent years, would have been described by right hon. and hon. Members opposite as "white collar", "middle class", or some other form of antiquated phraseology. For other and different reasons, the nurses became associated in a body which was rather different in character from what we understand by a trade union.

Several categories of professional or white collar workers such as teachers and bank officers have developed organisations which are entirely similar to trade unions or which are, in effect, trade unions. They come under the broad umbrella of trade unions in the Bill. Others in similar occupations have developed differently and, for the reasons referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, are more appropriately dealt with by the special register.

In both kinds of organisations, there has been a disposition to intervene in matters of conditions and of negotiations. That must be admitted. But no one can deny that, in the case of the Royal College of Nursing and similar professional bodies such as the Law Society, negotiations of a trade union character have been a minor part of their activities in some cases. They have developed over the years in a way which is analogous to a professional association which is concerned with education in the law, medicine or nursing. They have been deeply concerned with standards and with the nature of the service that their members render to the community. I do not say that trade unions have not had the same idea, but the organisations which we are discussing have been much more concerned with activities outside the normal duties and functions of trade unions. Therefore, I think it is entirely appropriate that the law should recognise these broad differences of character.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Sillars

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the British Medical Association has spent a larger proportion of its time and effort on non-trade union activities than on wage negotiations? If so, many people just would not believe it.

Mr. Gower

I should not like to make a broad assumption about it, but if the hon. Gentleman refers to all its meetings over the last few decades he would find that that was the case. Whereas there have been periods when it has been deeply involved in matters of salary, there have been more occasions when it has been dealing with other aspects of medical services.

Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a most backward Middle Ages outlook. They are going back further in our history. They see a danger or a motive when it does not exist. They think that in some Clauses they can detect a tendency or an inclination by my right hon. Friend to act at variance to their interests. But these new Clauses are an honest attempt to create a special framework for special organisations whose functions are somewhat different from those of ordinary trade unions. New Clause 9 is designed to afford the machinery to admit these organisations as well into the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. R. Carr

It is extraordinary. On the one hand, we hear from the Opposition of their apparent irresistible urge to get on to discuss all the bits of the Bill which they say have not been discussed. On the other hand, we find them asking for a whole day to discuss these three new Clauses. When we come to new Clause 9 we hear speeches which are in order but which inevitably, because the proposals are so closely linked together, could have been and were made, except by different hon. Members opposite, on new Clause 8. So we go over the same arguments, the same speeches, which tally ill with the supposed desire of the Opposition to get on to discuss the rest of the Bill.

Another thing which one cannot help noticing is that, on the one hand, we are told by the Opposition that registration is some terrible iniquitous thing designed by Satan to torment and to hamstring trade unions in all kinds of ways and, on the other hand, we are accused of class favouritism because we make this terrible business of registration more easily available than it would otherwise be to certain bodies. This is another example of the extraordinary schizophrenia from which the Opposition suffer. How can it be favouritism to make registration available to the bodies about which we are talking in these new Clauses, and particularly in Clause 9?

I repeat that one of the basic principles of the Bill is that in the conduct of industrial relations some of the most important rights and privileges which give greater power in the community and in our economy should be limited to organisations which satisfy certain basic principles and have rules on certain specified matters. Where organisations satisfy those conditions and, in the public interest, subject themselves to a measure of public supervision, then we say that it is right that they should have certain important rights and privileges. Hence our proposal of registration.

Whatever the Opposition may say about the fact that the form in which we are putting forward this proposal is different from theirs, not only was the basic principle put forward by them when they were in power, but it was recommended by the Donovan Commission. This is why we are going in for registration. We believe that registration, if we are to go in for it, should be available to all organisations involved in the conduct of industrial relations.

Mr. Harold Walker

The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the provisions of the Labour Government's Bill. Would he tell us where in that Bill or in "In Place of Strife" there were the awful consequences of non-registration which are contained in his Bill?

Mr. Carr

I did not say that it followed it precisely, but the basic ideas of registration were there. I would agree that we are nearer to the Donovan Commission in this than were the hon. Gentleman's Government. We are following the majority, if not the unanimous, recommendation of the Commission and the basic principles of the recommendation of a minority of the Commission about the differentiation in the principles available to registered and non-registered bodies.

We believe in registration in the form proposed in the Bill and we think that it should be available to all organisations involved in the conduct of industrial relations. If we are to do that, we have become convinced, as the result of representations made to us and consultations which we have had and which we have been willing to have with the T.U.C. or any of the individual unions as well—it is not our fault if we did not have them—that, in order to make registration available to many of the bodies which do—not "wish to" but already do—conduct industrial relations, this special register is necessary.

Without it, we should have to say to these bodies, such as—to give one example which has been mentioned frequently today—the Royal College of Nursing, that either, for no good purpose and to do no good to anyone else in the community, they would have to give up their previous practice of industrial relations, or, alternatively, they would have to give up the status, the activities which they cherish and which are doing no harm to anyone.

In other words, without this special register, far from refraining from giving some special privilege to these bodies, we should be imposing on them a grave handicap compared with the position which they occupy today. Either they would have to give up their industrial relations activities or they would have to give up their status as companies, chartered bodies and so on.

The hon. Member and others have tried to claim that we are discriminating in the registration process. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said in particular that there was no provisional special register. These lucky, favoured bodies, he was implying, could get straight on to the permanent register. Let me deal with that in two parts.

First of all, why is there no provisional special register? Mainly, almost entirely, it is because of the nature of the bodies with which we are dealing. The very fact that they are already either companies registered under the Companies Acts or chartered bodies means that they have already been subjected to the very close scrutiny of their rules and constitutions, or they would not be companies or chartered bodies.

Mr. Sillars

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us, then, whether or not Clause 71 will be applied to the organisations on the special register? The Clause says that, as soon as is practicable after the issuing of the registration certificate, the rules shall be examined.

Mr. Carr

Yes, indeed—

Mr. Sillars


Mr. Carr

I will come to this in a moment.

That is one answer to the question of why there is no provisional special register. If I may put the answer the other way around, if the ordinary trade union, the bona fide trade union, as the hon. Gentleman chose to call it, or the legitimate union, as other hon. Gentlemen chose to call it, wishes to go straight on the permanent register, without having to go through the provisional register, that is open to it under Clause 64.

There is nothing to say that an ordinary trade union must go on the provisional register. It is merely that the provisional register is there for two main purposes, one of which is that all bodies which are at present registered with the present Registrar of Friendly Societies will automatically be put on the provisional register and so, without having to take any overt act, be automatically within the scope of the Bill, though, by Clause 76, they will not have all the privileges of the Bill, nor its obligations, because those are confined to fully registered people. But if the ordinary trade union wishes to take the intiative and go straight on the permanent register, it has a perfect right under Clause 64 to do so.

I assure the House once more, although goodness knows, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have done so often enough already—that the degree of supervision, or the rigour of examination of the rules will be just as great for a body on the special register as for one on the ordinary register.

Mr. Rose

The right hon. Gentleman says that the rigour will be the same; but if he casts his eye on subsection (4) he will see that it is possible for a body on the special register to carry out activities which are not provided for by the memorandum or articles of association; in other words, to go beyond the functions for which it was formed. Is the Secretary of State not aware that the real objection here is not to the special register per se, but to the special register combined with the agency shop provision to provide monopoly negotiating rights for outmoded bodies rather than new, rising professional unions?

Mr. Carr

There is no specially favoured status there. If the so-called legitimate or bona fide trade union in medicine, engineering, or the like, can obtain support, it can apply for agency shop rights just as much as any of these bodies here. The hon. Member can make faces like that if he wishes to, but it is a fact. These bodies will have these agency shop provisions only if they ask for them and if they can maintain majority support of the workers in the activity involved. Also, minorities can at two-yearly intervals challenge, which is something they cannot do now. So it is nonsense to say that it is putting these traditional bodies in some favoured position. What hon. Members opposite are seeking is to see them put in an unfavoured position compared with the present position.

Mr. Rose

The Secretary of State has missed the point. There is to be an ossification of the existing structure. For instance, the Medical Practitioners Union is making inroads into the B.M.A. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, how once an agency shop has been established by the B.M.A., in this situation how it is conceivable for a rising but very small body like the Medical Practitioners Union ever to achieve majority status? The right hon. Gentleman knows that this provision is expressly designed to prevent the organic development of trade unionism among professional people, and particularly amongst doctors, nurses, and the like.

Mr. Carr

The hon. Gentleman should remember, if not what he has said, what his right hon. and hon. Friends have said in some of our debates. He says that the provisions of challenge are too inadequate to allow the growth of a little but growing union, yet earlier we were told that that right was a terrible menace because it allowed fragmentation. I was accused of creating a Trots Charter because the Bill would give the right to an up-and-coming union to establish itself. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways, though that is what they constantly seek. One moment the Bill is the devil, and the next it is the exact opposite. Hon. Members must decide which foot they are standing on.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara

We have never really said that the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be canonised.

Mr. Carr

I absolve the hon. Gentleman from that. Nevertheless, he and his hon. Friends cannot have it both ways on so many points.

There is no discrimination here because these provisions, along with Schedule 3, apply just as much to an organisation that goes on the special register as to one that goes on the ordinary register. The registrar will look at the rules of the one which goes on the special register with the same rigour, requirements and standards as the one which goes on the ordinary register.

Mr. Murray

The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing sinister about registration under the special register procedure. If that is so, and if it is just a supplementary way of getting on the ordinary register, why not call it a "supplementary register" instead of a "special register"?

Mr. Carr

Perhaps the answer is simply that I did not think of it. It is just a means of distinguishing between the two, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had tabled an amendment to that effect I would no doubt have thought about it seriously. I assure him that there is nothing sinister about it.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we are intending by this special register procedure to narrow the field for the activities of what they have called "legitimate" trade unions. But this is nonsense, because the position of the legitimate trade unions compared with that of the professional bodies is being kept on a level. Both are being given an opportunity to register. It would be unfair and discriminatory to give one the right to register but deny it to the other. We are treating them equally, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, we are providing a practical proposal to meet a practical problem.

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman spent a considerable time going over familiar ground, and he found that necessary not only because this part of the Bill hangs together but because the whole Bill hangs together. Whether or not we like it, the whole thing is cross-referenced to and fro. Indeed, it is impossible to refer to one Clause without being referred to another.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing sinister about these provisions and that my hon. Friends were looking for hidden motives. He went on to say that the Government were placing legitimate trade unions on a par with professional bodies. If our suspicions were groundless, if there were nothing sinister in it, he could settle the matter at once by suggesting, instead of a special register for special organisations, that the existing professional bodies and the like could go on the ordinary register provided for under the Bill. But that he has not done.

As for the terminology of class distinction, I wish to make the point clear. When they talk in terms of class distinction, my hon. Friends mean that the Government are trying to use some of the existing professional organisations in a class sense against the trade unions.

We all recognise that in today's world the manager of a factory or of an organisation can be just as much a part of legitimate trade unionism as the man who sweeps the floor. This is the new situation developing in the trade union world. I pointed out in a previous debate that the biggest growth sector in the trade union movement has been among professional and white-collar workers. This trend will continue, for the status, function and role of white-collar workers has greatly changed as a result of the advance of technology. Everyone recognises that and knows that it will be the pattern for the future. So we accept that trade unionism now goes from the highest to the lowest, as it were, in various industries, trades and professions.

The great argument we have about these Clauses is that it is precisely legitimate trade unionism, or bona fide trade unionism, whatever one calls it, which now could be—I do not say will be—denied the opportunity of advance as a result of what the Government propose.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) made some interesting points in this connection. He wandered in, he said, and made a couple of observations because he had not heard the whole debate, but I am most grateful to him for wandering in, for in a few moments he revealed the real thinking of hon. Members opposite, which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have been trying to conceal.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, explaining what he said the trouble was, took the example of the Royal College of Nursing, an old-fashioned, old-established organisation. Then, he said, the trade unions started to recruit. Competition started, C.O.H.S.E., N.U.P.E. and N.A.L.G.O. started getting members. There was a demand by the nurses for better wages and conditions. So overnight, as it were, the hon. Gentleman said, the Royal College of Nursing was transformed into a militant body.

That is true. The Royal College was transformed into a militant body because legitimate trade unions were moving into the field. The same happened in relation to professional engineers and managers, in whose world for years there had been staff and managerial associations. Then that wicked man Mr. Clive Jenkins appeared out of the clouds to start organising the managers.

Mr. R. Carr

If it is so good that Mr. Clive Jenkins and his union should be able to compete in this field, why was it so bad when he tried to compete in the field of white-collar workers in the steel industry?

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)


Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to equate two different situations. The Bridlington Agreement is in existence, and under it the trade unions have ironed out these matters between themselves.

Mr. Orme


Mr. Heffer

Yes, and the General Secretary of A.S.T.M.S. and his executive accepted the decision.

I accept that the professional bodies to which we have referred began with the best of motives and still have the best of motives. We are not saying that the professional bodies which lay down professional standards and do all sorts of good works are not legitimate bodies that should not have a membership. But there has also grown up in them a particular type of activity which is really the function of a trade union. It was the trade union organisations that were pressing in that direction.

We are also discussing Amendment No. 240, which seeks to eliminate from Schedule 3 paragraph 23, concerning the registrar's power of exemption. It is not that we accept the principle of registration—we are totally opposed to it—but if the right hon. Gentleman is serious in saying that he does not wish professional organisations to be put on a different level, but to be on the same level as the legitimate trade unions, he can accept our Amendment. That would have the effect of putting them on the same level, in that the registrar's power of exemption would be eliminated. In that sense the two bodies would be on precisely the same level. We believe that the power of exemption was primarily put in to assist employers' organisations and not the trade unions. It could certainly be used to assist professional bodies even further than the provisions of the special register. On that basis the Amendment could and should be accepted.

The Minister said that if professional organisations were not on the special register we should be imposing a grave handicap on them. What about the grave handicap being put upon the legitimate, bona fide trade union movement, the

grave handicap of registration in the first place, the grave handicap of the Bill, and the grave handicap that the old-fashioned professional organisations could under certain conditions be a barrier stopping the advancement of legitimate trade unionism?

For all these reasons, my hon. Friends and I will vote against giving the Clause a Second Reading.

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

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 240.

Division No. 266.] AYES [9.29 p.m.
Adley, Robert Dean, Paul Holland, Philip
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Holt, Miss Mary
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Digby, Simon Wingfield Hooson, Emlyn
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hornby, Richard
Astor, John Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Atkins, Humphrey du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigare)
Awdry, Daniel Dykes, Hugh Howell, David (Guildford)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Eden, Sir John Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Balniel, Lord Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hunt, John
Batsford, Brian Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton Elliott, R. W. (N's'tle-upon-Tyne.N.) Iremonger, T. L.
Bell, Ronald Emery, Peter James, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Eyre, Reginald Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Farr, John Jessel, Toby
Benyon, W. Fell, Anthony Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Biffen, John Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Jones, Arthur (Northa[...]ts, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John Fletcher-Cooke, Charles J opting, Michael
Blaker, Peter Fookes, Miss Janet Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Fortescue, Tim Kaberry, Sir Donald
Body, Richard Fowler, Norman Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Boscawen, Robert Fox, Marcus Kershaw, Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford A Stone) Kimball, Marcus
Bowden, Andrew Fry, Peter King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gardner, Edward King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Braine, Bernard Gibson-Watt, David Kinsey, J. R.
Bray, Ronald Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Kirk, Peter
Brewis, John Kitson, Timothy
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Knight, Mrs. Jill
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Glyn, Dr. Alan Knox, David
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Codber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Lambton, Antony
Bryan, Paul Goodhart, Philip Lane, David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) Goodhew, Victor Langford-Holt, Sir John
Buck, Antony Gorst, John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bullaus, Sir Eric Cower, Raymond Le Marchant, Spencer
Burden, F. A. Gray, Hamish Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Green, Alan Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Grieve, Percy Longden, Gilbert
Carlisle, Mark Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Loveridge, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Grylls, Michael MacArthur, Ian
Chapman, Sydney Glimmer, Selwyn McCrindle, R. A.
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Gurden, Harold McLaren, Martin
Chichester-Clark, R. Hall, John (Wycombe) McMaster, Stanley
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hall-Davis, A. C. F. Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McNair-Wilson, Michael
Cockeram, Eric Hannam, John (Exeter) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Cooke, Robert Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maddan, Martin
Coombs, Derek Harrison, Col. Sir HarwOOd (Eye) Madel, David
Cooper, A. E. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Maglnnis, John E.
Condle, John Hastings, Stephen Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Cortfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Havers, Michael Marten, Neil
Cormack, Patrick Hay, John Mather, Carol
Costain, A. P. Hayhoe, Barney Maude, Angus
Critchley, Julian Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Mawby, Ray
Crouch, David Hicks, Robert Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Crowder, F. P. Higgins, Terence L. Meyer, Sir Anthony
Curran, Charles Hilcy, Joseph Mills, Peter (Torrington)
d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry Hill. John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,MaJ.-Gen.Jamee Hill James (Southampton, Test) Miscampbell, Norman
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Rees, Peter (Dover) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side
Moate, Roger Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Molyneaux, James Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Tebbit, Norman
Money, Ernie Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Temple, John M.
Monks, Mrs. Connie Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Monro, Hector Ridsdale, Julian Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Montgomery, Fergus Rippon, Rt. Hn. Ceoffrey Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
More, Jasper Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Morgan, Garaint (Denbigh) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Tilney, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Trew, Peter
Mudd, David Rost, Peter Tungencmat, Christopher
Mutton, Oscar Russell, Sir Ronald Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald St. John-Stevas, Norman van Straubenzee, W. R.
Neave, Airey Scott, Nicholas Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Scott-Hopkins, James Vickers, Dame Joan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sharpies, Richard Waddington, David
Normarvton, Tom Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wall, Patrick
Nott, John Shelton, William (Clapham) Walters, Dennis
Onslow, Cranky Simeons, Charles Ward, Dame Irene
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Sinclair, Sir George Warren, Kenneth
Orr, Capt., L. P. S. Skeet, T. H. H. Weatherili, Bernard
Osborn, John Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Soref, Harold White, Roger (Gravesend)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Speed, Keith Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Silence, John Wiggin, Jerry
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Sproat, Iain Wilkinson, John
Percival, Ian Stainton, Keith Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Pike, Miss Mervyn Stanbrook, Ivor Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Pink, R. Bonner Steel, David Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Pounder, Rafton Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Woodnutt, Mark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.) Worsley, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred Stokes, John Younger, Hn. George
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Quennell, Miss J. M. Sutcliffe, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Raison, Timothy Tapsell, Peter Mr Walter Clegg and
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Abse, Leo Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Dalyell, Tarn Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Allen, Scholefield Darling, Rt. Hn. George Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Davidson, Arthur Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, Dentil (Llanelly) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ashley, Jack Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Ashton, Joe Davies, llor (Gower) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Atkinson, Norman Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Hardy, Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Deakine, Eric Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Barnes, Michael Delargy, H. J. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Barnett, Joel Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hattersley, Roy
Beaney, Alan Dempsey, James Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Doig, Peter Heffer, Eric S.
Bldwell, Sydney Dormand, J. D. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bishop, E. S. Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Douglas-Mann, Bruce Huckficid, Leslie
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Driberg, Tom Hughes, Rt. Hn. ciedwyn (Anglesey)
Booth, Albert Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Dunnett, Jack Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Eadie, Alex Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, Tom Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hunter, Adam
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Ellis, Tom Janrrer, Creville
Buchan, Norman English, Michael Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, Fred Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Lady wood) John, Brynmor
Cant, R. B. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Carmichael, Neil Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hu!l, W.)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Foley, Maurice Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccfes) Foot, Michael Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Forrester, John Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Clark, David (Cclne Valley) Fraser, John (Norwood) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Freeson, Reginald Jones, T. Atec (Rhondda, W.)
Cohen, Stanley Garrett, W. E. Kaufman, Gerald
Coleman, Donald Gilbert, Dr. John Kerr, Russell
Concannon, J. D, Grnsburg, David Kirmock, Neil
Conlan, Bernard Golding, John Lambie, David
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lamond, James
Crawshaw, Richard Courlay, Harry Latham, Arthur
Lawson, George Murray, Ronald King Spearing, Nigel
Leadbitter, Ted Ogden, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick O'Halloran, Michael Stallard, A. W.
Leonard, Dick O'Malley, Brian Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Lector, Mist Joan Oram, Bert Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Orbach, Maurice Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Orme, Stanley Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Oswald, Thomas Strang, Gavin
Lipton, Marcus Palmer, Arthur Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lomas, Kenneth Parker, John (Dagenham) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Loughlin, Charles Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Swain, Thomas
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Pavitt, Laurie Taverne, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thomas, Rt. Hn. George(Cardiff, W.)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson Pendry, Tom Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
McBride, Neil Pentland, Norman Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
McCartney, Hugh Perry, Ernest C. Tinn, James
McElhone, Frank Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Tomney, Frank
McGuire, Michael Prescott, John Torney, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor Price, J T. (Westhoughton) Tuck, Raphael
Mackie, John Probert, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
Mackintosh, John P. Rankin, John Wainwright, Edwin
Maclennan, Robert Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
McNamara, J. Kevin Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
MacPherson, Malcolm Rhodes, Geoffrey Wallace, George
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Richard, Ivor Watkins, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Weitzman, David
Marks, Kenneth Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wellbeloved, James
Marquand, David Robertson, John (Paisley) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Meacher, Michael Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Whitehead, Phillip
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Roper, John Whitlock, William
Mendelson, John Rose, Paul B. Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Millan, Bruce Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Molloy, William Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Sillars, James Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Silverman, Julius
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Skinner, Dennis TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Small, William Mr. Alan Fitch and
Moyle, Roland Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Mr. Joseph Harper.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. McNamara

I beg to move Amendment (qqqqq) to the proposed Clause, in line 17, leave out 'appear to him to be' and insert 'are'.

The Clause raises a matter of principle about which we are concerned. This is a small but fundamental Amendment. The Government are proposing a subjective test for the Registrar. All that he has to do is to have a hunch or a feeling and make a superficial scrutiny of a situation. We believe that the Registrar, in reaching a conclusion, should have a set of criteria and objective tests by which he judges a situation.

This is not a question of banging the class drum. We merely demand that reasons should be adduced explaining why a decision has been made. If we were asking any favours of the Government, this would be one which they could grant. As we are not asking for favours, the Government do not grant this one, we shall divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Hooson

I support the hon. Member Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in this small but important Amendment. The new Clause allows the Registrar to decide matters on an entirely subjective basis. One Registrar may decide one thing and another may decide something else without reference to an objective test.

It is arguable that this is a question of semantics only, but it goes deeper. It is necessary to establish an objective test, because if some organisations are to be refused registration there must be a principle on which they are refused. It is not good enough simply to provide that certain things shall "appear" to the Registrar. I warmly support the Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

If the new Clause meant what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said it meant, I would have some sympathy with the Amendment. But the matters to which the Registrar must have regard and in respect of which he must apply an objective test are those specified in the third line of subsection (4), which says that the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organization… It is on the nature of the activities carried on that his decision depends. The question he has to ask himself in deciding whether or not the organisation qualifies is: what are the activities actually carried on? Do those activities actually carried on amount to the regulation of relations between workers of that description and employers? If the activities amount as a matter of objective test to the regulation of relations in that way, he regards the organisation as qualifying. I hear the right hon. Lady supporting by a mutter that which has been said by both hon. Members.

The point about the phrase in commas: whether they appear to him to be in accordance with its memorandum and articles of association is to divert the Registrar's attention away from an analysis which he might unnecessarily have to undertake. When he looks at the articles or the charter, some doubt may be raised as to whether, by carrying on activities involving the regulation of relations between workers and employers the organisation is or is not acting in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. That is something which he is adjured to disregard. The matter which he has to decide is the activities actually carried on by the organisation.

When he is having regard to the activities actually carried on, he may say that he can see that the organisation is to this extent or to that extent trying to regulate relations between its members and employers. When he sees that, as a matter of fact, it is undertaking those activities, he could be diverted into a further analysis of whether the undertaking of those activities is or is not in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. He may say that that raises a difficult question. If one looks at the provisions in many of the charters limiting the extent to which these organisations can or cannot undertake trade union activities, if one looks at the corresponding provisions in the memorandum and articles of some of the companies that qualify, the difficult question arises of whether or not the undertaking of industrial relations activities does or does not infringe the original memorandum and articles, but that is something which the Registrar need not concern himself with. He need not and should not be concerned with whether it appears to him that the organisation is or is not proscribed by its memorandum, articles or charter from undertaking those activities. It is a matter between the organisation and its maker. It may or may not be infringing the obligations imposed upon it by the Companies Act or by the terms of its charter. It would be interesting to consider that question, and it might be open to other people to raise it before the Companies Court, but it is irrelevant to this question. All he has to say is: is this body conducting activities of the kind which qualify it for registration?

Mr. Gower

I take my hon. and learned Friend's point, but might not the confusion which has arisen be due to the two words "or not" at the end? Would the wording be improved if it were: whether or not they appear to him to be in accordance with… Alternatively, could other wording to substituted for this awkward "or not" at the end?

The Solicitor-General

I see my hon. Friend's point, but I hesitate to say whether his Amendment is acceptable. The object of the exercise is clear. The Registrar need not decide whether the activities are or are not in accordance with the memorandum, articles or charter.

Mr. Hooson

Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, that if the Registrar gleans the superficial or prima facie impression that the activities are in accordance with the memorandum, that is sufficient?

The Solicitor-General


Mr. Hooson

That is, what, virtually, the hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. and learned Member has not grasped the point, I fear. I shall return to it. It is not a question of whether the activities are or are not superficially in accordance with the memorandum and articles. That does not affect the question which the Registrar has to ask himself, which is: "Is the organisation conducting activities of the kind which would qualify for registration as a matter of fact?" Is it in fact? The right hon. Lady says that this does not say so. New Clause 8 says: In determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, whether an organisation fulfils the conditions specified… That is the question. Do its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers?

In answering the question, the Registrar …shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organization…". He sees what it is doing and has to decide this as an objective question of fact. He has to decide what the organisation's activities are.

There then can be raised a quite separate question, irrelevant to the question which he is asking himself—whether what it is doing is or is not in accord with its memorandum, articles or charter. On that, he is not required or invited to trouble himself with this question. He could say, "It appears to me, on a superficial impression, as though what this body is actually doing may be, in one form or another, infringing its memorandum, articles or charter, but that is not a question with which I need concern myself. The only question with which I need concern myself is what actually are the activities that it is undertaking".

It is for others, at a different place and a different time, if they wish, to say, "What you are actually doing is in conflict with your memoranda and articles". That is a question which can be raised elsewhere. It is not something with which the registrar need concern himself. That is why it is put on one side. His superficial impression of that is something with which he need not trouble himself. He comes back to the main question of what are the activities carried on by the organisation.

Mr. Murray

Surely the Solicitor-General cannot have it both ways. If what he is saying now is correct, it seems to follow inexorably that the words after "organisation" in subsection (4) are unnecessary, because the inquiry stops there, and the Solicitor-General says that it goes no further. If the remaining words "or not" are necessary, then plainly the words "have regard to" earlier in the subsection must open the possibility that what the Registrar is being instructed to do may be merely a superficial expression of impression between a description of what the activities are said to be and the actual memorandum, charter or letters patent. That would be an a priori exercise in which one would he simply construing what the description of activities is and what the memorandum should do. I accept that that may be irrelevant. It seems that the Solicitor-General cannot avoid this dilemma. Whichever horn he exposes, he is caught The Amendment exactly fits the point. If the words "appear to him to be" are deleted and the word "are" is inserted, this makes it clear that some factual inquiry has to be undertaken. I understand that to be accepted by the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General

I do not wish to appear uncomprehending, because we are here concerned with quite a narrow point. The question that the registrar has to decide is; what does it do? He has not to worry himself about the question, even if what it does is, or appears to be, or appears as though it might be, in conflict with the object as set down. That is the question which he has to ask himself. I do not identify the dilemma which the hon. Gentleman identifies for me. He is right in saying that if we stopped at line 17 the message would merely be In determining…whether an organisation fulfils the condition…the registrar shall have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation", but, lest he should be confronted by the appearance that the activities are going beyond, are outside, or are in conflict with, the objects as defined in the memorandum or articles, he is told, "Worry yourself not about that. Whether the articles appear to be in accordance with or in conflict with the memorandum or articles is not a question with which you need trouble yourself."

Mr. Murray

With respect, it would have to be "whether or not". The "or not" would have to come right after "whether".

The Solicitor-General

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) appear to be marching together on matters of drafting; and, plainly, if the provision has given as much difficulty to hon. Members as it appears to have done, it is something which should be looked at again. Beyond that I cannot go. The intention, I think, is clear, that one looks to the question: what is it actually doing?

Mr. Gower

I do not support the Amendment, but I think that some alteration of this wording is needed. I do not think that the Amendment would accomplish what is necessary, namely, to clear up the uncertainty due to the addition of these peculiar words "or not" at the very end. The best thing would be to reword the latter part in a separate sentence.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend makes the same point. The intention is not that the Registrar should worry his head about questions of compliance or non-compliance with the articles or objects of the organisation. That would raise very difficult questions outside the scope of this legislation. We do not wish him to be concerned with that. That is the object of these provisions. The questions he has to ask himself are these: what are the activities? Do they as carried on come within the provisions of new Clause 8(3)(b)?

I do not wish to say more about it than that, except to repeat that, as it appears to have given rise to anxieties of drafting rather than of objectives, I will see that it is looked at again.

Mr. Rose

The Solicitor-General has succeeded in tying himself in a curious legal knot. This is not a purely legalistic Amendment and substituting the objective for the subjective test provides a safeguard against what could be an arbitrary decision of the Registrar of ineligibility for registration. This must be seen in the light of the astonishing power of exemption in paragraph 23 of Schedule 3.

The Solicitor-General will agree that, as the words stand, the Registrar has virtually unfettered discretion in deciding whether the activities carried on by an organisation are within the scope of the memorandum and articles of association or the charter or letters patent, or not. Earlier on, the Secretary of State seemed to indicate that it would not matter whether an organisation was acting within the scope of its charter for the purposes of registration. If this is so, it is a fantastic discrimination against ordinary trade unions that, whereas one of these organisations may act outside the scope of its charter and may do something that it was not incorporated to do, a trade union has to comply with the most stringent provisions with regard to registration.

Then there comes the question of appeal; because there is an appeal from the Registrar in all cases to the National Industrial Relations Court. But in deciding an appeal an objective itself must be necessary. The words as they stand virtually preclude the N.I.R.C. from applying any objective criteria in overruling the Registrar's subjective view. This, again, would seem to be in contradistinction to the Government's desire to make the N.I.R.C. the arbiter in matters touching trade unions, whereas here complete scope is left for the arbitrary decision of the Registrar. Here we see the difference in approach to professional bodies as against ordinary trade unions, in matters of registration.

Clauses 70 to 79 give power to the Registrar to investigate complaints made by members of bodies which presumably would now include the B.M.A. or the Bar Council, under subsection (2). I shall be interested to hear from the Solicitor-General whether, under Clause 79, as a result of subsection (4) of the new Clause the Registrar can now interfere with the manifestly archaic powers of the British Medical Association's Disciplinary Committee, because there is a growing feeling among the public that this is a crusty, Victorian body which is self-perpetuating and which has little sensitivity to the real problems—

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Member appears to be in some confusion. The Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council is a statutory Body, first set up under the 1857 Act and re-established under more recent legislation. It has nothing to do with the British Medical Association. The Disciplinary Committee is a statutory body, set up by the House and quite distinct from the British Medical Association.

Mr. Rose

I take the hon. and learned Member's point. He is distinguishing between two different types of organisation—one an established professional organisation, which appears to be allowed to act outside the scope of its own charter—and a new type of trade union, such as the Medical Practitioners' Union, organised under the umbrella of the A.S.T.M.S., which will now be precluded from growing because of the enforcement of what will be virtually an agency shop giving monopoly powers to the British Medical Association.

With all my misgivings about the N.I.R.C. I should not like a decision to be taken by the Registrar without a right of appeal as to whether the organisation concerned was acting ultra vires according to whether it was carrying on activities outside the scope of those for which it was formed. If we maintain a subjective criterion in relation to the Registrar it precludes any appeal to an impartial body, because one cannot appeal against a subjective decision.

Subsection (4) of the new Clause, which enjoins the Registrar to have regard to the activities actually carried on by the organisation seems to be a charter for discrimination by the Registrar, if he so desires, on behalf of those who already have privileges. By seeking to delete, as the Amendment would do, the words appear to him to be and to substitute the simple word "are", we are putting forward a reasonable proposition which should commend itself to the Solicitor-General and to anybody who is fair-minded and considers that unfettered administrative discretion is not something that the House should favour.

For that reason I urge the Solicitor-General to make a concession on this small point and to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 289.

Division No. 267.] AYES [l0.4 p.m.
Abse, Leo Dalyell, Tam Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Allen, Scholcfield Davidson, Arthur Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hardy, Peter
Ashley, Jack Davies, Ifor (Gower) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ashton, Joe Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Atkinson, Norman Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Hattersley, Roy
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Deakins, Eric Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Barnes, Michael Delargy, H. J, Heffer, Eric S.
Barnett, Joel Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hooson, Emlyn
Beaney, Alan Dempsey, James Horam, John
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Doig, Peter Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bidwell, Sydney Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bishop, E. S. Douglas-Mann, Bruce Huckfield, Leslie
Blenkinsop, Arthur Driberg, Tom Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Booth, Albert Dunnett, Jack Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Eadie, Alex Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hunter, Adam
Bradley, Tom Edwards, William (Merioneth) lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Ellis, Tom Janner, Greville
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) English, Michael Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Buchan, Norman Evans, Fred Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. John, Brynmor
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Fishier, Mrs.Doris(B'ham, Ladywood) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuH, W.)
Cant, R. B. Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Carmichad, Neil Foley, Maurice Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Foot, Michael Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Forrester, John Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fraser, John (Norwood) Jons, Gwynoro (Garmarthen)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Freeson, Reginald Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Garrett, W. E. Judd, Frank
Cohen, Stanley Gilbert, Dr. John Kaufman, Gerald
Coleman, Donald Ginsburg, David Kelley, Richard
Concannon, J. D. Golding, John Kerr, Russell
Conlan, Bernard Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Kinnock, Neil
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Gourlay, Harry Lambie, David
Crawshaw, Richard Grant, George, (Morpeth) Lamond, James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Latham, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Lawson, George
Leadbitter, Ted Ogden, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick O'Halloran, Michael Stallard, A. W.
Leonard, Dick O'Malley, Brian Steel, David
Lestor, Miss Joan Oram, Bert Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Lever, Rt, Hn. Harold Orbach, Maurice Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Orme, Stanley Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Oswald, Thomas Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Lipton, Marcus Palmer, Arthur Strang, Gavin
Lomas, Kenneth Parker, John (Dagenham) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Loughlin, Charles Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Pavitt, Laurie Swain, Thomas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Taverne, Dick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pendry, Tom Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, w.)
McBricle, Neil Pentland, Norman Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
McCartney, Hugh Perry, Ernest G. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
McElhone, Frank Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Tinn, James
McGuire, Michael Prescott, John Tomney, Frank
Mackenzie, Gregor Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Torney, Tom
Mackie, John Probert, Arthur Tuck, Raphael
Mackintosh, John P. Rankin, John Urwin, T. W.
Maclennan, Robert Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Wainwright, Edwin
McNamara, J. Kevin Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
MacPherson, Malcolm Rhodes, Geoffrey Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Richard, Ivor Wallace, George
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Watkins, David
Marks, Kenneth Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Weitzman, David
Marquand, David Robertson, John (Paisley) Wellbeloved, James
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Meacher, Michael Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Roper, John Whitehead, Phillip
Mendelson, John Rose, Paul B. Whitlock, William
Millan, Bruce Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Miller, Dr. M. S. Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Molloy, William Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Sillars, James Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Silverman, Julius Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Skinner, Dennis
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Small, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Moyle, Roland Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Spearing, Nigel Mr. Joseph Harper.
Murray, Ronald King
Adley, Robert Carlisle, Mark Fidler, Michael
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Chapman, Sydney Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Astor, John Chichester-Clark, R. Fookes, Miss Janet
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Fowler, Norman
Awdry, Daniel Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fox, Marcus
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Clegg, Walter Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone)
Balniel, Lord Cockerman, Eric Fry, Peter
Batsford, Brian Cooke, Robert Gardner, Edward
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Coombs, Derek Gibson-Watt, David
Bell, Ronald Cooper, A. E. Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Cordle, John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Glyn, Dr. Alan
Benyon, W. Cormack, Patrick Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Berry, Hn. Anthony Costain, A. P. Goodhart, Philip
Biffen, John Critchley, Julian Goodhew, Victor
Biggs-Davison, John Crouch, David Gorst, John
Blaker, Peter Crowder, F. P. Cower, Raymond
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Curran, Charles Gray, Hamish
Body, Richard d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Green, Alan
Boscawen, Robert d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, Jack Grieve, Percy
Bossom, Sir Clive Dean, Paul Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Bowden, Andrew Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Grylis, Michael
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Digby, Simon Wingfield Gummer, Selwyn
Braine, Bernard Dodds-Parker, Douglas Gurden, Harold
Bray, Ronald Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hall, John (Wycombe)
Brewis, John du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Dykes, Hugh Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Eden, Sir John Hannam, John (Exeter)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bryan, Paul Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Buck, Antony Emery, Peter Hastings, Stephen
Bullus, Sir Eric Eyre, Reginald Havers, Michael
Burden, F. A. Farr, John Hay, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Fell, Anthony Hayhoe, Barney
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hicks, Robert Miscampbell, Norman Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Higgins, Terence L. Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Hiley, Joseph Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Simeons, Charles
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Moate, Roger Sinclair, Sir George
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Molyneaux, James Skeet, T. H. H.
Holland, Philip Money, Ernie Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Holt, Miss Mary Monks, Mrs. Connie Soref, Harold
Hornby, Richard Monro, Hector Speed, Keith
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Montgomery, Fergus Spence, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) More, Jasper Sproat, Iain
Howell, David (Guildford) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Stainton, Keith
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Stanbrook, Ivor
Hunt, John Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Mudd, David Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Iremonger, T. L. Murton, Oscar Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
James, David Nabarro, Sir Gerald Stokes, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Neave, Airey Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Jessel, Toby Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sutcliffe, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Normanton, Tom Tapsell, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Nott, John Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Onslow, Cranley Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Kershaw, Anthony Osborn, John Tebbit, Norman
Kimball, Marcus Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Temple, John M.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Page, Graham (Crosby) Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Page, John (Harrow, W.) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Kinsey, J. R. Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, w.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Kirk, Peter Percival, Ian Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon S.)
Kitson, Timothy Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Tilney, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill Pike, Miss Mervyn Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Knox, David Pink, R. Bonner Trew, Peter
Lambton, Antony Pounder, Rafton Tugendhat, Christopher
Lane, David Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John Price, David (Eastleigh) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Proudfoot, Wilfred Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Le Marchant, Spencer Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Vickers, Dame Joan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Quennell, Miss J. M. Waddington, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Raison, Timothy Wall, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Walters, Dennis
Loveridge, John Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Ward, Dame Irene
MacArthur, Ian Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.) Warren, Kenneth
McCrindle, R. A. Rees, Peter (Dover) Weatherill, Bernard
McLaren, Martin Rees-Davies, W. R. Wells, John (Maidstone)
McMaster, Stanley Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David White, Roger (Gravesend)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
McNair-Wilson, Michael Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Wiggin, Jerry
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Ridsdale, Julian Wilkinson, John
Maddan, Martin Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Madel, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Maginnis, John E. Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Woodnutt, Mark
Marten, Neil Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Worsley, Marcus
Mather, Carol Rost, Peter Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Maude, Angus Royle, Anthony Younger, Hn. George
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Russell, Sir Ronald
Mawby, Ray St. John-Stevas, Norman TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Scott, Nicholas Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Scott-Hopkins, James Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Sharples, Richard

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 244.

Division No. 268.] AYES [10.16 p.m.
Adley, Robert Biffen, John Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Biggs-Davison, John Buck, Antony
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Blaker, Peter Bullus, Sir Eric
Archer, Jeffney (Louth) Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Burden, F. A.
Astor, John Body, Richard Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Atkins, Humphrey Boscawen, Robert Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)
Awdry, Daniel Bossom, Sir Clive Carlisle, Mark
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bowden, Andrew Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ba[...], Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Chapman, Sydney
Batsford, Brian Brain, Bernard Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bray, Ronald Chichester-Clark, R.
Bell, Ronald Brewis, John Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Brinton, Sir Tatton Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Clegg, Walter
Benyon, W. Bruce-Gardyne, J. Cockeram, Eric
Berry, Hn. Anthony Bryan, Paul Cooke, Robert
Coombs, Derek Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooper, A. E. Jessel, Toby Raison, Timothy
Cordle, John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Corfield, Bt. Hn. Frederick Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cormack, Patrick Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Costain, A. P. Jopling, Michael Rees, Peter (Dover)
Critchley, Julian Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Rees-Davies, W. R.
Crouch, David Kaberry, Sir Donald Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Crowder, F. P. Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Curran, Charles Kershaw, Anthony Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kimball, Marcus Ridsdale, Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Dean, Paul King, Tom (Bridgwater) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Khisey, J. R. Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kirk, Peter Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kitson, Timothy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Knight, Mrs. Jill Rost, Peter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Knox, David Royle, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh Lambton, Antony Russell, Sir Ronald
Eden, Sir John Lane, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Langford-Holt, Sir John Scott, Nicholas
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Scott-Hopkins, James
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Le Marchant, Spencer Sharples, Richard
Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Farr, John Longden, Gilbert Simeons, Charles
Fell, Anthony Loveridge, John Sinclair, Sir George
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy MacArthur, Ian Skeet, T. H. H.
Fidler, Michael McCrindlc, R A. Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) McLaren, Martin Soref, Harold
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) McMaster, Stanley Speed, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macmilan, Maurice (Farnham) Spence, John
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Michael Sproat, Iain
Fowler, Norman McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Stainton, Keith
Fox, Marcus Maddan, Martin Stanbrook, Ivor
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone) Madel, David Steel, David
Fry, Peter Maginnis, John E. Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Gardner, Edward Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David Marten, Neil Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mather, Carol Stokes, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maude, Angus Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Glyn, Dr. Alan Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Sutcliffe, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Mawby, Ray Tapsell, Peter
Goodhart, Philip Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Goodhew, Victor Mills, Peter (Torrington) Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)
Gorst, John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Gower, Raymond Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Gray, Hamish Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Tebbit, Norman
Green, Alan Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Temple, John M.
Grieve, Percy Moate, Roger Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Molyneaux, James Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Grylls, Michael Money, Ernie Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Gummer, Selwyn Monks, Mrs. Connie Thompson, sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gurden, Harold Monro, Hector Tilney, John
Hall, John (Wycombe) Montgomery, Fergus Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. More, Jasper Trew, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morgan, Geramt (Denbigh) Tugendhat, Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) van Straubenzee, W, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mudd, David Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Murton, Oscar Vickers, Dame Joan
Hastings, Stephen Nabarro, Sir Gerald Waddington, David
Havers, Michael Neave, Airey Wall, Patrick
Hay, John Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Walters, Dennis
Hayhoe, Barney Nomranton, Tom Ward, Dame Irene
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Nott, John Warren, Kenneth
Hicks, Robert Onslow, Cranley Weatherill, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L. Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hiley, Joseph Orr, Capt. L. P. S. White, Roger (Cravesend)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Osborn, John Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hill, James, (Southampton, Test) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Wiggin, Jerry
Holland, Philip Page, Graham (Crosby) Wilkinson, John
Holt, Miss Mary Page, John (Harrow, W.) WOlrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hooson, Emlyn Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hornby, Richard Percival, Ian Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Woodnutt, Mark
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pike, Miss Mervyn Worsley, Marcus
Howell, David (Guildford) Pink, R. Bonner Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Pounder, Rafton Younger, Hn. George
Hunt, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Hutchison, Michael Clark Price, David (Eastleigh) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Iremonger, T. L. Proudfoot, Wilfred Mr. Tim Fortescue and
James, David Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Abse, Leo Grant, Georgo (Morpeth) Moyle, Roland
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick
Allen, Scholefied Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Murray, Ronald King
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Ogden, Eric
Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Halloran, Michael
Ashley, Jack Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) O'Malley, Brian
Ashton, Joe Hannan, Maryhill (G'gow, Maryhill) Oram, Bert
Atkinson, Norman Hardy, Peter Orbach, Maurice
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orme, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel Hattersley, Roy Palmer, Arthur
Beaney, Alan Healey, Rt. Hn. Den's Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Heffer, Eric S. Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bidwell, Sydney Horam, John Pavitt, Laurie
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Blenkinsop, Arthur Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pendry, Tom
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Huckfieid, Leslie Pentland, Norman
Booth, Albert Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Perry, Ernest G.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hughes, Mark (Durham) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Prescott, John
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Roy (Newport) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Hunter, Adam Probert, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill) Rankin, John
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Janner, Greville Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Buchan, Norman Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jeger,Mrs. Lena(H'b'nSt.P'cras,S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Richard, Ivor
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) John, Brynmor Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cant, R. B. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caenarvon)
Carmichaiel, Neil Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Roderick, CasrwynE.(Br'c'n&R';dnor)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Castlie, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roper, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Rose, Paul B.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley Judd, Frank Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Coleman, Donald Kaufman, Gerald Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Concannon, J. D. Kelley, Richard Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Conlan, Bernard Kerr, Russell Sillars, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kinnock, Neil Silverman, Julius
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Lambie, David Skinner, Dennis
Crawshaw, Richard Lamond, James Small, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Latham, Arthur Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Lawson, George Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Stallard, A. W.
Davies, Denzil (Llamelly) Leonard, Dick Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lester, Miss Joan Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Strang, Gavin
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Deakins, Eric Lipton, Marcus Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Delargy, H. J. Lomas, Kenneth Swain, Thomas
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Loughlin, Charles Taverne, Dick
Dempsey, James Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Doig, Peter Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Dormand, J. D. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McCartney, Hugh Tornney, Frank
Driberg, Tom McElhone, Frank Torney, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P. McGuire, Michael Tuck, Raphael
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Gregor Urwin, T. W.
Eadie, Alex Mackie, John Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackintosh, John P. Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Maclennan, Robert Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ellis, Tom McNamara, J. Kevin Wallace, George
English, Michael MacPherson, Malcolm Watkins, David
Evans, Fred Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Weitzman, David
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.) Wellbetoved, James
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Marks, Kenneth Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Marquand, David White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy Whitehead, Phillip
Foley, Maurice Meacher, Michael Whitlock, William
Foot, Michael Mcllish, Rt. Hn. Robert Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Forrester, John Mendefson, John Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Millan, Bruce Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Freeson, Reginald Miller, Dr. M. S. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Garrett, W. E. Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Gilbert, Dr. John Moiloy, William Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ginsburg, David Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Golding, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Gourlay, Harry Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. Joseph Harper.
Clause accordingly added to the Bill.
Forward to