|(1) In this Act, except in sections 57 and 63(l)(a),—|
|5||(a)'organisation of workers' includes any organisation which does not fall within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 57(1) of this Act but is for the time being entered in the special register;|
|(b) 'federation of workers' organisations' includes any organisation which does not fall within section 57(2) of this Act but is for the time being entered in the special register as a federation of workers' organisations.|
|10||(2) Subject to the exceptions and modifications specified in the following provisions of this section, all the provisions of this Act shall have effect in relation to an organisation which is for the time being entered in the special register as they have effect in relation to a trade union.|
|(3) The following provisions of this Act shall not have effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, that is to say, sections 57(3), 69, 70, 74 to 76, 80, 81 and 83.|
|15||(4) The following provisions of this Act shall have effect in accordance with subsection (2) of this section subject to the following modifications, that is to say—|
|(a) in sections 72 and 73, any reference to registration as a trade union or as an employers' association shall be construed as a reference to entry in the special register;|
|20||(6) in section 77(2)(a), for the words 'a trade union registered under this Act as being' there shall be substituted the words 'an organisation entered in the special register as'.—[The Solicitor-General.]|
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Government Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 and 104 to 106, and the following Opposition Amendments: No. 209, in Clause 149, page 103, line 29, after second 'workers', insert:'or between two or more independent organisations of workers'.Amendment No. 210, in page 105, line 26, leave out from 'union' to end of line 27 and insert:'means an independent organisation of workers, whether or not it is registered under this Act'.
§ The Solicitor-General
The new Clause is, in substance, designed to make consequential changes in the definition and implementation of the provisions of the Bill following the acceptance by the House of new Clauses 8 and 9. Subsection (1) of the new Clause saysexcept in sections 57 and 63(1)(a),—(a) 'organisation of workers'180 includes an organisation which is entered in the special register, and it also makes a corresponding provision for "federation of workers' organisations".
The exception of Clause 57 is necessary because it is itself defining an organisation of workers which is not specially registered and, therefore, must be distinguished from the specially registered body. The ordinary organisation of workers is defined by reference to a principal object, and the organisation with which we are here concerned is defined by reference to an activity. The exclusion of Clause 63 arises only because new Clause 8 (3)(a) provides, in a different form, the necessity for an organisation to be independent before it can qualify on this, as on the other, register.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause provides that, subject to what follows, all the obligations and rights which apply to or are available to an organisation of workers shall apply to or be available to an organisation on the special register, and the exceptions from that are dealt with in subsection (3), which provides that the provisions listed there are not to have 181 effect in relation to organisations on the special register.
The provisions listed are, first, Clause 57(3), which is the definition provision which the House was considering last; Clause 69, which is the provision dealing with certificates of registration—they are separately provided for in relation to organisations on the special register by new Clause 9—and Clause 70, which is not applied to specially registered organisations. The last provision gives corporate status to an organisation of workers which is not necessary for those bodies on the special register because they already have it either as companies or as chartered bodies.
Clauses 74 to 76 are excluded in relation to the bodies on the special register. They are the Clauses which provide for registration on the provisional register, and there is no question of that being available for this kind of body because it is not already registered.
Clauses 80, 81 and 83 are those which deal with the obligation of an ordinary workers' organisation to maintain accounts, to have them audited, to submit an annual return and report, to preserve a register of members, to submit to control of its superannuation funds, and to be subject to winding-up. Those are not applied to the organisation on the special register, not because it is not intended that the specially registered organisation should be under the same obligations but because the obligations dealt with in those Clauses are imposed upon companies and chartered bodies by their own systems of control under the Companies Act or their charters.
Thus, the upshot of all this is that the organisation on the special register is subject to the same obligations and has the same rights as the ordinary workers' organisation.
Subsection (4) makes some variation in the terms of Clauses 72, 73 and 77 but does not affect the way in which they operate in relation to bodies on the special register. The effect of subsection (4) is to make plain that a body on the special register is subject to the same prospect of having its registration cancelled or of having complaints by members against it investigated by the 182 Registrar. The provisions in Clauses 72, 73 and 77 which make those matters available in respect of the ordinary workers' organisation will apply in relation to the specially registered organisation as well. So there is nothing of substance or significance in this Clause of which the House need take particular note.
The consequential and related Government Amendments which we are considering at the same time are, with one exception, merely altering references in the definition Clauses. The one exception is Amendment No. 106, which extends the meaning of "worker" in Clausse 149, the general definition Clause.
The definition of "worker" is basically intended to cover someone working under a contract of employment or someone working under a contract for work or services which he is under an obligation to perform personally. That definition as it stands would not include the four categories of person employed in the National Health Service, referred to in Amendment No. 106, providing general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services or general ophthalmic services under the relevant provisions of the National Health Service Act and the corresponding Scottish Act.
Such people are in contract with the executive council under which they undertake to provide services for patients. It is a triangular relationship, which is mysterious in some ways, and is not possible to identify save by specifically listing them in this way.
The intention is that "worker" includes that kind of general medical, general dental, pharmaceutical or ophthalmic practitioner, and, accordingly, a workers' organisation includes one which comprises people of that kind. If this were not part of the definition we should have the odd conclusion that hospital doctors on contracts of service with a hospital board or management committee were on a contract of employment and would be covered as "workers" but general medical practitioners and others on a contract with the executive council which is somewhat special in its nature might not qualify as "workers". That is the one linked Amendment which I felt I should explain.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
It is a matter of regret to me that the Solicitor-General did not also refer to the other Amendments selected for debate. It is primarily to them that I want to direct my remarks.
We are inevitably and logically opposed to the proposed Clause. That naturally follows from our opposition to the linked Clauses 8 and 9. Because it is an opposition that has already found its expression, I turn immediately to our Amendments.
Amendment No. 210 once again calls into question the whole principle of registration as conceived and spelled out by the Government, whilst Amendment No. 209 seeks to retain the protection that has been afforded for over 60 years by the Trades Disputes Act, 1906 to disputes between workmen and workmen.
There have repeatedly today been extraordinary charges by the Government that we are wasting the time of the House by debating the proposed new Clauses. The complaint should be from this side that under the restrictions of the guillotine more than 100 Clauses have gone without debate, particularly, in this context, Clause 149, containing the definitions, which is of such crucial importance to the Bill and hence to the whole industrial relations system and atmosphere, which is threatened by radical and fundamental change. The definition of "industrial dispute" that we now find in Clause 149 represents a considerable narrowing of what it has been for at least 60-odd years.
When we started our debates there were frequent references to the Royal Commission Report as a justification for what the Government are putting before the House. This claim has worn thin, and we have heard less and less of it as the days and weeks have gone by. By narrowing the definition of "trade dispute" as they have done, the Government are not only inconsistent with but in outright defiance of the Royal Commission, which examined this point very carefully. We have heard the Government once or twice rest on a minority of the Royal Commission. It is true that there was a minority in favour of such a change in the law as is here proposed by the Government, but it was a minority of three out of 12, and they considered the matter in an entirely different context.
184 In paragraph 817 the Commission summarised its assessment by saying:We do not think that this definition"—the existing definition—needs any substantial alteration.But, in spite of that, the Government have gone ahead and introduced this fundamental change in the definition of "trade dispute". We are particularly concerned to have the Amendment debated because of the class of dispute which is likely to grow because of the Bill and its consequences.
The creation of the special register and the introduction of the agency shop and the sole bargaining provisions are likely to encourage inter-union strife. But it is precisely in these situations that the unions will be stripped of protections which they have had for so long. Furthermore, it is not always easy to determine whether a dispute is inter-union or between union and employer. I am thinking particularly of the Girling dispute, which was particularly damaging during the period when was a junior Minister at the Department. It was extremely difficult to disentangle the issues, which had a powerful element of inter-union strife at their origin. The strike which subsequently occurred did not, however, arise from differences between unions but because of the action of the employer.
But, because of the changes made by the Bill in the definitions, employers and others might persuasively argue that there is an inter-union dispute because, by doing so, they will have greater scope for legal action and for redress in the courts for damages sustained as a consequence of a strike—damages that would have been ruled out prior to the Bill and, indeed, would be ruled out under the Bill if it was held that it was an industrial dispute and that the parties were acting in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
Previously, the legal distinction between the two kinds of dispute—the one between employer and workers and the other between workmen and workmen—has not been of great consequence in the kind of situation I have just described. Now it is being given great consequence by the Bill. The distinction will be a matter of considerable importance not only for employers but for trade unionists—and, indeed, under Clause 87, for example, it 185 will be of considerable importance to extraneous parties also.
It may well be that the Government say, "It will be a good thing if the consequence of this change is to introduce a new and powerful deterrent to inter-union conflict." But they are opening the door to interminable legal wranglings which can do nothing but harm to our industrial relations, exacerbate the difficulties we all know exist and add severely to the onerous restrictions the Government are already imposing on trade unions and organisations of workers. It is clearly diminishing the rights and freedoms which the Government repeatedly deny they are attacking.
The Government insist that the Bill is not designed to diminish the rights and freedoms of workers and their organisations, but we have pointed out time and again that they are doing precisely the opposite. Here, they are putting still more shackles on the freedom of trade unions to carry out what have been their legitimate practices, the proper exercise of their power and the pursuit of their functions throughout their history.
§ Mr. Gower
The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of an industrial trade dispute. Why does he attach so much weight to that since when he was a junior Minister he and his Government were in favour of amending the definition of a dispute? In "In Place of Strife" the last Government advocated the change.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Walker
To exclude this class of dispute from the definition of "trade dispute"? The hon. Gentleman has it wrong.
§ Mr. Walker
We never considered excluding that class of dispute from the long-standing definition of a trade dispute which is embodied in the 1906 Act—that is, atrade dispute' means any dispute between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen".It is the second part which the Government have deleted from the definition of "trade dispute" with some very serious consequences. For example, the protec- 186 tion against torts which is provided by Clause 119 of the Bill will not extend to inter-union disputes.
I turn to Amendment No. 210. By proposing that "a trade union" meansan independent organisation of workers, whether or not it is registered under this Actwe are again seeking to restore the position of the different castes of trade unionists or workers in industry to what it was before this iniquitous Bill was presented. I do not want to reiterate the arguments adduced about the three castes, if the Government take exception to references to "classes"—the superieur, the ordinaire and the inferieur. But this is only part of our objection to the principle of registration as conceived by the Government.
We have made it clear that this is not registration as such. It is registration in the detailed way presented by the Government and with all the awful consequences of non-registration to which we take exception. As the Government point out, not only is there provision in the law as it stands for registration; there was provision in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). But neither the existing law nor my right hon. Friend's Bill had the consequences of this Bill, which rests on a divided decision of the Donovan Commission.
I am glad that we have had the opportunity of at least touching on the tip of this enormous iceberg, the definition in Clause 149, which so radically transforms our industrial relations system. Because the new Clause involves a principle which we have attacked, I shall eventually seek the support of my hon. Friends in the Lobby to express our opposition to it.
§ Mr. Orme
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) has said. I wish to deal with the Opposition Amendments to Clause 149.
It is very important that, as the Clause was not discussed at all and deals with the question of interpretation, the Solicitor-General should answer the points made and not dismiss our Amendments in such cavalier manner.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to do me an injustice. It seemed to me to be sense, 187 since there were Opposition Amendments, for me to confine myself to moving the Government new Clause, hear what he and his hon. Friends had to say and then, with the leave of the House, reply. I was not being cavalier. I hope, after that modest explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
§ Mr. Orme
I withdraw that, and accept the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Paragraph 816 of the Donovan Report gives a definition of a trade dispute. Section 3 of the 1875 Act and Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1906 Act have been narrowed down by the definition of the Bill. The Donovan Report speaks of a trade dispute between employees and workmen or between workmen and workmen, and Amendment No. 209 inserts in Clause 149 the words:or between two or more independent organisations of workers.This narrowing down of the definition of a trade dispute is a serious matter. Those of us who have worked for a long time to reduce the number of disputes between organisations of workers and trade unions fear that the proliferation of organisations which may come about under the Bill will lead to a larger number of disputes in the future. This is a most serious point which I hope the Solicitor-General will answer.
Amendment No. 210 deals with the definition of a trade union in Clause 149, which is:'trade union' has the meaning assigned to it by section 57(3) of this Act.Clause 57(3) reads:In this Act 'trade union' means an organisation of workers which is for the time being registered under this Act.Again, this is an extreme narrowing down which excludes any organisation not registered under the Bill. We know the arguments of the trade union movement against registration, and a non-registered union would be excluded from the definition.
I have been backwards and forwards through the Bill and the Amendments, from Clause 149 back to Clause 57(3). This shows the legal complexities of the Bill and the difficulty of putting forward one's views in a logical way. Those of us who are in the Chamber at the 188 moment could be classed as the "in" people on the Bill. God knows what will happen when it reaches the shop floor. If we have difficulty comprehending this sort of thing and following these definitions, we can see the difficulties which will arise. The Solicitor-General owes it to the House to explain why these definitions have been narrowed. If he is not prepared to accept the Opposition Amendments, he should say why that is so. I hope he will understand that in these Amendments we are returning to fundamental points dealing with the definition of a trade dispute and of a trade union. I can think of nothing more important.
§ Mr. Murray
In touching on Clause 149, we are touching the tip of an iceberg. One Government and one Opposition Amendment bear upon the definition of "worker". I can understand that Government Amendment No. 106 is necessary to extend the rather odd definition of "worker" in Clause 149 to include various medical workers. In contrast, Opposition Amendment No. 210 focuses on the definition of "trade union". I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
I want to point to an oddity that might arise under the definition of "worker". Have the Government considered whether this definition may or may not include, for example, a managing director? If it does, the interesting oddity arises that it may include ordinary directors also. If it includes ordinary directors, we have the interesting possibility that the Institute of Directors might be registered as a trade union or as one of the special bodies which get in through the special register. If it can do that, it might also register as employers' organisation. I may be wrong and the Solicitor-General may correct me on this, but as far as I can see, there is nothing expressly in the Bill to prevent a body from being both an organisation of employers registered under the Bill and an organisation of workers registered under the Bill. This may be intended to bring closely together the amity between the two sides of industry.
§ Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)
First, I would say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in drawing attention to the importance of the change in the definition. 189 We are abandoning the definition of a trade dispute which dates from 1906, though I do not agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster or the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in supposing that because this change is fundamental, which it is, it should be ruled out.
If we go back to the circumstances in which the 1906 Act was passed, we find that there was considerable misgiving in the Cabinet at that time, especially in the minds of the Law Officers, about the definition of a trade dispute. Several members of the Cabinet believed that the definition was far too wide. There was considerable dispute in the Cabinet about the final terms of the Trade Disputes Bill.
That Bill began in a very narrow form. It had to be widened under pressure from the trade unions and from the new Labour Party which had just entered the House of Commons.
I do not wish to be tediously historical about this, but if one goes back to the 1906 discussions in the House of Commons and outside it, it is easy to see that there was widespread misgiving then about the definition of a trade dispute. That was over 60 years ago. It is not necessarily an act of blasphemy for the Government to say, as they do, that the definition needs revision. We have had more than 60 years' experience of it.
Although I agree that this is a fundamental change, I do not agree that because it is a fundamental change it should, therefore, not be made. I draw attention to one aspect of this fundamental change to which nobody on the other side has referred. Clause 149 narrowly defines the meaning of the new phrase "industrial dispute". These words are much narrower in scope than the phrase "trade dispute" which they supersede. One difference which needs to to be stressed is that "industrial dispute"means a dispute…where the dispute relates wholly or mainly to any one or more of the following…I take it that the Opposition grasps that one consequence of this is that it would exclude anything in the nature of political strikes. Perhaps some of the theologians on the other side might argue that some political strikes are trade disputes; but once the Bill becomes law it 190 will not be possible to argue that a political strike can become an industrial dispute.
I welcome this definition. I recognise that it is fundamental, and I applaud the Government for introducing it, because once this definition is on the Statute Book it will put beyond argument the proposition that it is not lawful for a trade union to engage in the use of industrial action for political purposes.
§ Mr. Murray
It has never been suggested from this side of the House that a political strike is any form of industrial dispute. It has been pointed out time and again in the course of our discussions on the Bill that if workers down tools and march out, whatever their motives, that will not be an unfair industrial practice.
§ Mr. Curran
I am not saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested it. I say that a vague and imprecise impression has arisen that somehow or other it is legitimate for a trade union to use industrial power for the purpose of registering a political objective. I recognise that this change is fundamental and also that it is highly necessary in the public interest.
§ Mr. Harold Walker
Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the right to do something which may be undesirable is an essential part of any free society? Once we start to suppress something because some of us consider it to be undesirable, we are on the way to the corporate State. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this new definition will render unlawful a political strike and he welcomes that, I hope that not merely the trade union movement but also those eternal vigilant watchdogs of our freedoms and liberties—the Press—will take note of what he is saying.
§ Mr. Curran
I agree with the hon. Gentleman but the word "undesirable" which he uses is rather a question-begging word. It depends on how it is measured, how it is defined, and what yardstick is used. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that one of the great platitudes which are repeated perhaps too often in this place is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but this vigilance can be exercised in ways other than the use of industrial action.
§ Mr. Loughlin
I have been interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). I am sick and tired of people like the hon. Gentleman lecturing the trade unions about the use of their power for political purposes. Since when have trade employers not used every possible power for political purposes?
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
We hear about undemocratic unions, but never a word about the undemocratic House of Lords. Their Lordships also have a lot of power, but were never elected to any position.
§ Mr. Loughlin
I take the point, but I was dealing with the two sides of industry. Unions are occasionally pushed into what can be described as industrial action for political ends. Before the General Election, an enormous number of employers poured money into the coffers of the Tory Party. Without reference to shareholders, they used their industrial power for political ends. So let us not be hypocritical. Even after this definition becomes law, there will still be industrial action for political ends.
§ Mr. Curran
The hon. Gentleman is arguing by means of a false analogy. He is right. I do not know that employers and capitalists "poured" money into the Tory Party, but at least they contributed to it. But the unions contributed to the Labour Party. They are free to do so as the law stands, but if it is right for one lot of people to contribute to one party, why is it not right for another lot to contribute to another party? Is there not a basic difference between giving money to a party and calling a strike?
§ Mr. Loughlin
I do not know that there is when it comes to defeating the Government of the day. Not only did employers pour money into the election fund: they also supported a campaign through a number of organisations against the Labour Government—a completely political campaign for their own purposes. So let us not be hypocritical.
I do not mind fighting the hon. Member for Uxbridge on political issues, although I am getting too old to fight and too fat to run. I would not mind if the barricades were set up—I suppose I would be on the right side—but at least we should be honest. This is a political battle. The Tory Party are designing a 192 Bill for the sole purpose of shackling the trade unions, but they will not get away with it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish.") Hon. Gentlemen know in their hearts that this is the primary purpose of the Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a very difficult Clause for me to understand. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me to which subsection his remarks relate?
§ Mr. Loughlin
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are Amendments as well as the Clause, and I am discussing Clause 149, which deals with definitions, and Amendments Nos. 209 and 210. I appreciate your point, for one very good reason, and it underlines virtually every contribution that I have made in Committee and on Report: it is extremely difficult for hon. Members who are not members of the learned profession to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) belongs to understand how to relate our arguments to certain specified Clauses and Amendments.
In any event, I had no intention of intervening until I was surprised once again to hear a contribution from the benches opposite suggesting that the only people who use industrial strength for political ends are the trade unions.
§ The Solicitor-General
I was heartened to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) said about there being nothing positively blasphemous in daring to suggest that some of the provisions in the ancient legislation could be looked at again. I was also interested in his point and the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) about the extent to which the definition of "industrial dispute" or "trade dispute" should cover a strike for political purposes.
The position is clear probably on the old definition, and certainly it is on this one, that in order to qualify as an industrial dispute or a trade dispute, the dispute has to be connected with the terms or conditions of employment of people. If it is unconnected with them and connected with what cannot be defined as an industrial relations issue but is a purely political one, the Bill is not designed to provide for it. It is a form of industrial action undertaken in circumstances with which the ordinary courts 193 would have to deal in the future, as they have in the past. That is made clear.
I do not go along with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that there is some kind of differential treatment. He is right that employers, like many others, contribute funds for political purposes, just as trade unions do. It is no part of the Bill to curtail that kind of activity within the ordinary framework of the law.
We are saying that the organisation of industrial action, be it by an employer, an employers' association or a trade union, is not an industrial dispute if it is organised in the pursuit of a political objective. That is the same whether organised by an employer, an employers' association or a trade union. It has nothing to do with industrial relations, and there is nothing discriminatory in either sense on that.
§ Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)
By the same token, will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if workers merely stay away from work and do not tell anyone why or invent all sort of reasons, they will not come within the scope of the Bill at all?
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
That is a different question and depends upon which part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman is discussing. In the context of what we are discussing now, I am making it clear that politically organised industrial action of either side is outside the scope of the Bill and is a matter for the ordinary courts.
The hon. and learned Member for Leith (Mr. Murray) raised a short series or points—a briefer catechism than I normally expect to hear from him—about the inter-relationship of registration of a workers' organisation under Clause 57 and of an employers' organisation under Clause 58. It depends whether the organisation is wholly or mainly of one kind of person or another. I suspect that the directors who belong to the Institute of Directors are not themselves employers but are more probably employees of companies and, therefore, workers, and that they would, therefore, qualify as workers.
I also suspect that the Institute of Directors is not concerned as such with the regulation of relations between 194 workers and employees. But if it were to undertake trade union activities on behalf of directors vis-à-vis companies which employ them, I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman should complain that trade unionism had reached so high a level of white-collarism. I gather that he does not complain and that we are at one. In any event, it would be a matter for analysis whenever the question arose.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke principally on the Amendment concerning the definition of an industrial dispute. The position is that the existing definition, as Donovan made clear, is not entirely beyond dispute. The reference to the Trinidad case and Stratford v. Lindley makes it clear that it is not even now apparent whether a recognition conflict is within the provisions of the 1906 Act definition. But if it is plain, as Donovan opines without being quite certain, that a recognition dispute is within the old definition, it follows that an inter-union dispute of any kind, even in the situation in which the employer is entirely neutral, would attract the provisions of the Bill and qualify as an industrial dispute. On that, the Donovan minority said—in the passage which the hon. Member quoted—that it was not right, where the employers were wholly uninvolved, where the dispute was not of the employers' making, that that kind of dispute should qualify for definition as an industrial dispute.
The intention of the definition is that any dispute which involves a confrontation or argument between work people or their organisation and an employer or employers is covered by the definition of industrial dispute, but not so long as it remains in the area not involving the employer at all. If the House looks at the definition of "industrial dispute" on page 103—I have an uncanny feeling of having said all this before, although it may be that I misremember it—it will find that itmeans a dispute…relating wholly or mainlyto all the provisions set out, and the last is paragraph (d):a procedure agreement or any matter to which in accordance with this section a procedure agreement can relate".That takes one to the next stage, showing the large number of matters to which 195 a procedure agreement can relate. If a dispute is about any of those—including, for example, negotiating rights, dismissal or discipline, involving the employer in the confrontation or dispute—it qualifies as an industrial dispute. The only effective change is that a dispute which remains between the employees' organisations and does not in any case involve the employer would not, as such, qualify within the definition.
§ The Solicitor-General
It is not a major change but a significant change and along the lines that my hon Friend mentioned—that in order to qualify as an industrial dispute within the provisions of the Bill the dispute has to reach a point at which the union or unions or workpeople have at least gone to the employer and said, "This is what we want you to do—involve you in the argument which we have been conducting for some time." At that point it qualifies as an industrial dispute.
The hon. Member for Doncaster again raised the question of registration and argued for the umpteenth time that the privileges and obligations of a trade union should extend even to the unregistered body. We do not want to go back over that ground, but I want to underline one point that the hon. Member made. He said that he was not opposed to registration, and that that was why there were provisions in his right hon. Friend's Bill for registration. That is an interesting revelation—and not altogether a Freudian one—because, although the Bill published by the right hon. Lady in May of last year did not contain provision for registration, we know that at least one or two earlier Bills were in preparation during the time that the hon. Member was at the Department of Employment and Producivity, and it must be that he was harking back in his memory to the provisions for registration contained in one of those Bills, with which the right hon. Lady was so familiar but which the country was never to see—
§ Mr. Harold Walker
I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept my word that I was intending to refer to the provisions in the White Paper.
§ The Solicitor-General
That is an equally interesting point, because it makes clear that the hon. Member, at least, was accepting the concept of registration. The interesting question is whether that proposal in his right hon. Friend's White Paper—to which he has reverted with affection—said that unions should register with a new Registrar of trade unions and that refusal would lay a union open to a financial penalty imposed by the Industrial Board. If we have that point being commended, even at this late stage, we have more in common than we had at one time thought—
§ Mr. Walker
The hon. and learned Gentleman must not misrepresent me. What I said, and what I have not deviated from in all our discussions, is that the principle of registration was not at issue; it exists in the law at present, and many trade unions are registered. What we are opposed to is registration in detailed form, with the requirements laid down in the Bill and the consequence that it provides for failing to do so.
§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) upholds registration on a voluntary basis. The hon. Member for Doncaster's recent explanation of his earlier reference to acceptance of the principle of registration by his saying that he meant the principle as enunciated in the White Paper raises a different concept. Will he make it clear whether he supports the idea of compulsory registration as set out in the White Paper to which he referred? If so, was that compulsion to be achieved by the removal of the privileges contained in Section 3 of the 1906 Act or, as suggested in the White Paper to which the hon. Member referred, by the imposition of financial penalties?
As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman distinguished his position from that of being in favour of voluntary registration by asserting that his reference to registration in his right hon. Friend's Bill implied references to registration as advocated in the White Paper. If that is what he still has in mind and still hankers after—and still knows in his heart to be right—it is a useful concession, because we know that certain hon. Members opposite are prepared to recognise that registration supported by sanctions has an important part to play in this kind of legislation, as was enunciated by the hon. Member when 197 he was responsible for legislation in the Department.
§ Mr. Walker
The hon. and learned Gentleman must not keep taking refuge in putting to the House arguments arising from a Measure that is not before it. He must not seek refuge for the inadequacies of his argument in support of this Measure by referring to something that is now history and has not been before the House. It proves the weakness and inadequacy of his case that he should keep running down that bolthole.
§ The Solicitor-General
I hope that the House will acknowledge that I did not easily succumb to temptation on this occasion. It was because the hon. Gentleman himself referred to his acceptance of the idea of registration that I spoke as I did. He referred to his right hon. Friend's Bill and then to "In Place of Strife," and I thought I was entitled to say that we on this side were supported even on his current recollections of the strength of the arguments he once advanced to the country and in the House.
For a moment in the debate I thought I was back in church, because there was a great deal of talk about the theologians on this side, and earlier we heard of canonisation, the catechism, and so on. The fact is that we are in the House of Commons and discussing the Industrial Relations Bill.
In particular, the right hon. Gentleman developed the concept that in, for example, demarcation disputes the employer was supposedly neutral. I was in two industries in which demarcation disputes took place fairly regularly. We have now largely eliminated them by the action of the trade unions themselves. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in most of those disputes the employer was never neutral. In most cases he was decidedly on the side of one or other of the unions involved in discussion about the type of new material to be used, especially if the rate of pay and the conditions in one union were higher or better than those in another.
So it seems to me, the Government accept the minority view in Donovan on any occasion when it supports their point of view. When it is the majority view, on most occasions they totally ignore it. One would not imagine that the Commis- 198 sion had ever published a Report except on those few occasions when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite find that it falls in line with their own concept as published in "Fair Deal at Work" and now in the Bill.
Paragraph 820 of the Donovan Report states:The following members of the Commission, namely Lord Robens, Sir George Pollock and Mr. John Thomson, are of the opinion that demarcation disputes between trade unions in which the employer is neutral (that is, is indifferent as to which of the contending parties' members should do the particular job) should be excluded from the statutory definition of trade dispute, and that this should be achieved by deleting the words 'or between workmen and workmen'.This is precisely what the Government have done:They point out that the dispute they have in mind is not of the employer's making, that he can do nothing to resolve it and that in these circumstances it is unjust that he should be debarred from exercising legal remedies which might otherwise be open to him. The remaining members of the Royal Commission consider that it would be difficult to distinguish and define a demarcation dispute in which an employer was completely neutral and that as productvity bargaining spreads employers are likely to become more involved in defining the duties of particular workers. Demarcation disputes moreover are not nearly so costly in terms of working days lost as they used to be, and the problem is not so pressing as to justify altering the definition of a trade dispute in the way proposed.11.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) suggested that my hon. Friends were blaspheming in wanting to change the definition. But the majority of the Donovan Commission said the same thing.
The Commission also pointed out that with the complexity of modern industry, the development of new materials meant that more demarcation disputes were likely. These disputes will have to be resolved either within the trade union movement or, until certain matters are clearly defined, by the employers. There could, therefore, be a dispute concerning wages and conditions. These are some of the realities of industrial life which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge then pointed out that political strikes would not be affected by the Bill. But what is a political strike? Was the threat by 199 17,000 of the 22,000 doctors in the National Health Service to resign a political or industrial matter? The whole service would have come to a halt had their resignations taken effect, but was it a political act, because they were bringing pressure on the Government, or an industrial act, because they were concerned with wages and conditions?
The same could be said of the one-day dispute the other day. Were those workers concerned only with a political matter or with their future wages and conditions of employment? It is frequently impossible to distinguish between a political and an industrial act.
§ Mr. Bidwell
The other day some London dockers struck for one day and marched here to protect and support the freedom of speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who they thought was being thrown out of Parliament. That was a clear case of an undesirable political strike.
§ Mr. Heffer
To be fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not think many of them applauded that action. Like my hon. Friend and me, many of them thought it was an undesirable act. But did those workers take that action merely because they were against coloured immigrants or because they felt that their future employment in the Port of London was threatened? That raises the question of their employment and conditions of work, and I am certain that many of those workers were far more concerned about their future employment prospects than they were about the question of coloured immigration. However, we are not discussing that issue on these Clauses, although it is an interesting reference.
This is the first real opportunity we have had to discuss Clause 149, the definition Clause. The Government have put down a series of Amendments which change certain definitions, and we thought it right to discuss certain definitions which we consider should be changed. I take, first, the definition of a trade union.
By our Amendment, we say that "trade union" means an independent organisation of workers whether registered or not. We do not accept the Government's definition, that a trade union must be 200 registered under the Bill. This point has practical application. It is extremely probable that the overwhelming majority of trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. will not register under the Bill. The fact that they do not register does not mean that they cease to be trade unions. They will carry out trade union functions, but they will be under a definite liability because they have failed to register.
§ Mr. Heffer
The Under-Secretary of State nods to that. So when the Trades Union Congress says that one will have to have a licence to operate as a trade union, it is absolutely right. That is what the T.U.C. has said all along, and the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
§ Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham)
What did the T.U.C. say about the comment on page 32 of "In Place of Strife", that refusal to registerwill lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board"?Further, since the hon. Gentleman commented upon the Government's choice of parts of Donovan, will he comment on the other sentence in that paragraph which says that,The Royal Commission's alternative sanction was that the protection of section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 should be confined to registered unions",and the fact that his Government did not accept that?
§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. Lady asks me what the T.U.C. said about certain parts of "In Place of Strife". I am sure that I do not want to repeat in the Chamber some of the things it said about "In Place of Strife". But "In Place of Strife" was a White Paper, which was debated and discussed. On the basis of the discussions which took place, and after proper consultation "In Place of Strife" was withdrawn and a Bill was brought before the House, which unfortunately we never had the chance to discuss or amend because the June election came in the meantime. But such a Bill would have been discussed and, in my view, amended when it went through the House.
Whenever they get into difficulty, whenever they are unable to answer a point, or whenever they find themselves with nothing else to fall back on, hon Members 201 opposite always quote "In Place of Strife". That is all they ever do. They have no arguments of their own, so they come back to this point.
I have not said much about the proposed Clause, because we pretty well exhausted the whole of the discussion on the two previous Clauses. We have used this opportunity to discuss at least some parts of Clause 149, which we would not otherwise have had the opportunity to discuss because of the operation of the guillotine.
I ask my hon. Friends to reject the proposed Clause and vote for our Amendment.
§ Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)
We have had enough whining from the right hon. Lady and her supporters about the operation of the guillotine. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that in the Committee stage—I am not talking about the midnight fourth-form frolics—they have had no fewer than 64 Divisions—
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
§ The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 245.205
|Division No. 269.]||AYES||[11.41 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Crouch, David||Hawkins, Paul|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Crowder, F. P.||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Outran, Charles||Heseltine, Michael|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hicks, Robert|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Aston, John||Dean, Paul||Hiley, Joseph|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Holland, Philip|
|Balniel, Lord||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Batsford, Brian||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Beamish, Col Sir Tufton||Dykes, Hugh||Hornby, Richard|
|Bell, Ronald||Eden, Sir John||Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Benyon, W.||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Emery, Peter||Hunt, John|
|Biffen, John||Eyre, Reginald||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Farr, John||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Blaker, Peter||Fell, Anthony||James, David|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Body, Richard||Fidler, Michael||Jessel, Toby|
|Boscawen, Robert||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive|
|Bowden, Andrew||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Fletcher-Cookc, Charles||Jopling, Michael|
|Braine, Bernard||Fookes, Miss Janet||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Bray, Ronald||Fortescue, Tim||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Brewis, John||Foster, Sir John||Kellett, Mrs. Elaine|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fowler, Norman||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fox, Marcus||Kimball, Marcus|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Bryan, Paul||Fry, Peter||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)||Gardner, Edward||Kinsey, J. R.|
|Buck, Antony||Gibson-Watt, David||Kirk, Peter|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Kitson, Timothy|
|Burden, F. A.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Knight, Mrs. Jill|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Knox, David|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nalm)||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Lambton, Antony|
|Carlisle, Mark||Goodhart, Philip||Lane, David|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Goodhew, Victor||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Channon, Paul||Gorst, John||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Chapman, Sydney||Gower, Raymond||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Gray, Hamish||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Green, Alan||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Grieve, Percy||Longden, Gilbert|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Loveridge, John|
|Clegg, Walter||Grylls, Michael||MacArthur, Ian|
|Cockeram, Eric||Cummer, Selwyn||McCrindle, R. A.|
|Cooke, Robert||Curden, Harold||McLaren, Martin|
|Coombs, Derek||Hall, John (Wycombe)||McMaster, Stanley|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Cordle, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Hannam, John (Exeter)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maddan, Martin|
|Costain, A. P.||Hastings, Stephen||Madel, David|
|Critchley, Julian||Havers, Michael||Maginnis, John E.|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Pounder, Ration||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Marten, Neil||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Sutcliffe, John|
|Mather, Carol||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Maude, Angus||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)|
|Mawby, Ray||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Maxwell-Nyslop, R. J.||Raison, Timothy||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Tebbit, Norman|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Temple, John M.|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Moate, Roger||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Molyneaux, James||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Tilney, John|
|Money, Ernie||Ridsdale, Julian||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Monks, Mrs. Connie||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Trew, Peter|
|Monro, Hector||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.|
|More, Jasper||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||van Straubenzee, W R.|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Rost, Peter||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Russell, Sir Ronald||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Mudd, David||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Waddington, David|
|Murton, Oscar||Scott, Nicholas||Wall, Patrick|
|Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Scott-Hopkins, James||Walters, Dennis|
|Neave, Airey||Sharpies, Richard||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Shelton, William (Clapham)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Normanton, Tom||Simeons, Charles||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Nott, John||Sinclair, Sir George||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Onslow, Cranley||Skeet, T. H. H.||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Smith, Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)||Wilkinson, John|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Soref, Harold||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Osborn, John||Spence, John||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Sproat, Iain||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Page, Graham (Crosby)||Stainton, Keith||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Stanbrook, Ivor||Worsley, Marcus|
|Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Steel, David|
|Percival, Ian||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Pike, Miss Mervyn||Stokes, John||Mr. Bernard Weatherill and|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Mr. Keith Speed.|
|Abse, Leo||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Crawshaw, Richard||Gilbert, Dr. John|
|Allen, Scholefield||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Ginsburg, David|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Golding, John|
|Ashton, Joe||Dalyell, Tarn||Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.|
|Atkinson, Norman||Davidson, Arthur||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Barnes, Michael||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Barnett, Joel||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Beaney, Alan||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Deakins, Eric||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Delargy, H. J.||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Hamling, William|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dempsey, James||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Doig, Peter||Hardy, Peter|
|Booth, Albert||Dormand, J. D.||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hart, Rt, Hn. Judith|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hattersley, Roy|
|Bradley, Tom||Driberg, Tom||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tync,W.)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Dunnett, Jack||Horam, John|
|Buchan, Norman||Eadie, Alex||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Camphell, L. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Ellis, Tom||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cladwyn (Anglesey)|
|Cant, R. B.||English, Michael||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Evans, Fred||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)||Hunter, Adam|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Janner, Greville|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Cohen, Stanley||Foley, Maurice||Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)|
|Coleman, Donald||Foot, Michael||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Forrester, John||John, Brynmor|
|Conlan, Bernard||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Freeson, Reginald||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Johnson Walter (Derby, S.)||Millan, Bruce||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Sillars, James|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Silverman, Julius|
|Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W,Ham,S.)||Molloy, William||Skinner, Dennis|
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Small, William|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Judd, Frank||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Kelley, Richard||Moyle, Roland||Stallard, A. W.|
|Kerr, Russell||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Kinnock, Neil||Murray, Ronald King||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Lambie, David||Ogden, Eric||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Lamond, James||O'Halloran, Michael||Strang, Gavin|
|Latham, Arthur||O'Malley, Brian||Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.|
|Lawson, George||Oram, Bert||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Orbach, Maurice||Swain, Thomas|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Orme, Stanley||Taverne, Dick|
|Leonard, Dick||Oswald, Thomas||Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Palmer, Arthur||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Tinn, James|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pavitt, Laurie||Tomney, Frank|
|Lipton, Marcus||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Torney, Tom|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pendry, Tom||Tuck, Raphael|
|Loughlin, Charles||Pentland, Norman||Urwin, T. W.|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Perry, Ernest G.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Malum, Dr. J. Dickson||Prescott, John||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|McBride, Neil||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Wallace, George|
|McCartney, Hugh||Probert, Arthur||Watkins, David|
|McElhone, Frank||Rankin, John||Weitzman, David|
|McGuire, Michael||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Mackie, John||Rhodes, Geoffrey||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Richard, Ivor||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Whitlock, William|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|MacPherson, Malcolm||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamlton)|
|Marks, Kenneth||Roper, John||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Marquand, David||Rose, Paul B.||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Meacher, Michael||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.|
§ Clause accordingly read a Second time.
§ Mr. Eadie
I beg to move Amendment (ttttt) to the proposed Clause, in line 12, after '57(3)', insert '64'.
This is a classic example of how the guillotine operates. As we would say in the coalfield, I have one or two shots I would like to fire but I shall not have much time to fire them.
Judging by the noise of hon. Members opposite, to them the Amendment does not have much importance; but it has great importance. We are talking to some extent about democracy and people's rights. Once in a debate in the House the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) said that there was a danger that there would not be many moderates left. When I look at some sections of the Press, I wonder whether it is the Government's intention that that prophecy should come true. I should have thought that the moderate victory, as it was called, at the Croydon conference would have been hailed with 206 satisfaction, but apparently that is not so. Some sections of the Tory Press—and particularly one right hon. Gentleman opposite—do not seem to be satisfied, according to the reports of speeches we have read this weekend.
The Press reports of some of the speeches seemed to drip with blood, some of it trade unions' blood. This weekend in relation to this moderate victory there has been provocation which almost equals complete anarchy. There has been irresponsible reaction to the fact that the Congress approved the General Council's policy. The Government should tell the House whether they are content that the General Council's policy was successful at Croydon, or is the policy of non-cooperation not moderate enough? Certain sections of the Press and of the Government are playing with fire. The Government must realise that they are not elected for ever but only for a short time. They do not own Parliament. They have Parliament in trust. We hope the electorate will come to a decision on this.
207 We are entitled to look at the democratic content of the Bill. The trade union movement believes that certain rights are going by the board in relation to registration, certain rights which the trade union movement has had for over a hundred years. Under Clause 64, it is not a question of the membership being allowed to decide on the rules; the registrar will decide. I should have liked to develop this argument, but the Government, by the operation of the guillotine, have prevented democratic discussion taking place. The Government are the people who are supposed to be the custodians of democracy. They are custodians of democracy to the extent that they are not prepared to allow the Bill to be debated. We are able to debate only a minute proportion of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the T.U.C. and about the trade union movement trying to misrepresent his Bill, but it is he and his party who are to blame, because the elected representatives of the people have not had a chance to discuss the Bill. This is a complete negation of democracy.
Clause 64(4)(b) says:
that the requirements of subsection (3) of this section, and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with.
§ If I had had time, I would have liked to develop this argument—208
§ Mr. Eadie
The Government have put down certain Amendments to Clause 64—Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, and we should have liked the Government to tell us precisely what they mean. Do they mean that the Government concede to the argument put forward by my hon. Friends and by the T.U.C. that Clause 64 has become a nonsense? Only by the fact that we have been able to argue in the little time available to us that it has been a nonsense, in the arguments advanced by the T.U.C. and my hon. Friends, have we been able to demonstrate that the Government do not even understand the implications of their own Bill—It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Effect of entry in special register).
§ Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 243.211
|Division No. 270.]||AYES||[12 midnight.|
|Adley, Robert||Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Buck, Antony||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bullus, Sir Eric||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Burden, F. A.||Dykes, Hugh|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Eden, Sir John|
|Astor, John||Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Carlisle, Mark||Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.>|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Channon, Paul||Emery, Peter|
|Balniel, Lord||Chapman, Sydney||Eyre, Reginald|
|Batsford, Brian||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Farr, John|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Chichester-Clark, R.||Fell, Anthony|
|Bell, Ronald||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Fidler, Michael|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Cockeram, Eric||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)|
|Benyon, W.||Cooke, Robert||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Coombs, Derek||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Biffen, John||Cooper, A. E.||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Cordle, John||Fortescue, Tim|
|Blaker, Peter||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Foster, Sir John|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Cormack, Patrick||Fowler, Norman|
|Body, Richard||Costain, A. P.||Fox, Marcus|
|Boscawen, Robert||Critchley, Julian||Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Crouch, David||Fry, Peter|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Crowder, F. P.||Gardner, Edward|
|Braine, Bernard||Curran, Charles||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Bray, Ronald||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)|
|Brewis, John||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj-Gen James||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Dean, Paul||Glyn, Dr. Alan|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.|
|Bryan, Paul||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Goodhart, Philip||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Goodhew, Victor||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Gorst, John||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Rost, Peter|
|Gower, Raymond||Maddan, Martin||Royle, Anthony|
|Gray, Hamish||MMICI, David||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Green, Alan||Maginnis, John E.||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Grieve, Percy||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Scott, Nicholas|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Marten, Neil||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Grylls, Michael||Mather, Carol||Sharpies, Richard|
|Cummer, Selwyn||Maude, Angus||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Gurden, Harold||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mawby, Ray||Simeons, Charles|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Soref, Harold|
|Hastings, Stephen||Miscampbell, Norman||Speed, Keith|
|Havers, Michael||Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)||Spence, John|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Sproat, Iain|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Moate, Roger||Stainton, Keith|
|Heseltine, Michael||Molyneaux, Jame||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hicks, Robert||Money, Ernie||Steel, David|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Hiley, Joseph||Monro, Hector||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norofolk, S.)||Montgomery, Fergus||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)||More, Jasper||Stokes, John|
|Holland, Philip||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Sutcliffe, John|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hornby, Richard||Mudd, David||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.DamePatricia||Murton, Oscar||Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Neave, Airey||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Nicholas, Sir Harmar||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hunt, John||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Temple, John M.|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Norm an ton, Tom||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Nott, John||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|James, David||Onslow, Cranley||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Jessel, Toby||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E, Grinstead)||Osbom, John||Tilney, John|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Jopling, Michael||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Trew, Peter|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Percivai, Ian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Kimball, Marcus||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Pink, R. Bonner||Waddington, David|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Pounder, Rafton||Wall, Patrick|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Walters, Dennis|
|Kirk, Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Kitson, Timothy||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Warren, Kenneth|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Knox, David||Quennell, Miss J. M.||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Lambton, Antony||Raison, Timothy||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Lane, David||Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Langford—Holt, Sir John||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Longden, Gilbert||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Worsley, Marcus|
|Loveridge, John||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Mac Arthur, Ian||Ridsdale, Julian||Younger, Hn. George|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|McLaren, Martin||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|McMaster, Stanley||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Mr. Bernard Weatherill and|
|Mr. Walter Clegg.|
|Abse, Leo||Bidwell, Sydney||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Bishop, E. S.||Campbell, L (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Cant, R. B.|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Carmichael, Neil|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Booth, Albert||Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)|
|Ashton, Joe||Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Bradley, Tom||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Barnes, Michael||Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)|
|Barnett, Joel||Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Cohen, Stanley|
|Beaney, Alan||Buchan, Norman||Coleman, Donald|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Concannon, J. D.|
|Conlan, Bernard||John, Brynmor||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Pendry, Tom|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Pentland, Norman|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Prescott, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W. Ham, S.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Probert, Arthur|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Rankin, John|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Judd, Frank||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kaufman, Gerald||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Kelley, Richard||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Deakins, Eric||Kerr, Russell||Richard, Ivor|
|Delargy, H. J.||Kinnock, Neil||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lambie, David||Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)|
|Dempsey, James||Lamond, James||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Doig, Peter||Latham, Arthur||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lawson, George||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Leadbitter, Ted||Roper, John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Leonard, Dick||Rose, Paul B.|
|Driberg, Tom||Lestor, Miss Joan||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lipton, Marcus||Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Lomas, Kenneth||Sillars, James|
|Ellis, Tom||Loughlin, Charles||Silverman, Julius|
|English, Michael||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Evans, Fred||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Small, William|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)||McBride, Neil||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McCartney, Hugh||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Foley, Maurice||McElhone, Frank||Stallard, A. W.|
|Foot, Michael||McGuire, Michael||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Forrester, John||Mackenzie, Gregor||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Mackie, John||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mackintosh, John P.||Strang, Gavin|
|Garrett, W. E.||Maclennan, Robert||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||McNamara, J. Kevin||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Ginsburg, David||MacPherson, Malcolm||Swain, Thomas|
|Golding, John||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Taverne, Dick|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thomas,Rt.Hn.Ceorge (Cardiff,W.)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Marks, Kenneth||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Marquand, David||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Tinn, James|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Meacher, Michael||Tomney, Frank|
|Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Torney, Tom|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mendelson, John||Tuck, Raphael|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Millan, Bruce||Urwin, T. W.|
|Hamling, William||Miller, Dr. M, S.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Hardy, Percy||Molloy, William||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Wallace, George|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Watkins, David|
|Hattersley, Roy||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Weitzman, David|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Moyle, Roland||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Horam, John||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Murray, Ronald King||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Ogden, Eric||Whitlock, William|
|Huckfield, Leslie||O'Halloran, MichaeI||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||O'Malley, Brian||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Oram, Bert||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Orbach, Maurice||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Orme, Stanley||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hunter, Adam||Oswald, Thomas||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Janner, Greville||Parker, John (Dagenham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)||Pavitt, Laurie||Mr. Joseph Harper.|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
§ Clause accordingly added to the Bill.
§ Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.212
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.