HC Deb 22 March 1971 vol 814 cc45-132
(1) As soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, the registrar shall institute, and shall thereafter maintain, a register under this section (in this Act referred to as 'the special register').
5 (2) Except as provided by subsection (4) of this section, no organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register unless it is either—
(a) a company which is for the time being registered under the Companies Act 1948, having been so registered before the passing of this Act, or
(b) an organisation not for the time being registered under that Act, but incorporated by charter or letters patent, whether granted before or after the passing of this Act.
10 (3) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, any organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—
15 (a) it is an independent organisation consisting wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions;
(b) its activities include the regulation of relations between workers of that description or those descriptions and employers or organisations of employers; and
(c) it has power, without the concurrence of any parent organisation, to alter its own rules and to control the application of its own property and funds and those of its branches and sections (if any).
20 (4) Any organisation, whether it fulfils one or other of the conditions specified in subsection (2) of this section or not, shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—
(a) its membership consists wholly or mainly of constituent or affiliated organisations or of representatives of constituent or affiliated organisations;
25 (b) its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers or between workers and organisations of employers; and
(c) each of the constituent or affiliated organisations is either a trade union or is an organisation for the time being entered in the special register.
(5) In this section 'parent organisation', in relation to an organisation, means an organisation of which it is a branch or section.—[The Solicitor-General]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

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

Mr. Speaker

With this new Clause I am prepared to allow Government Amendments Nos. 58 to 61, 98 and 99 and Opposition Amendment No. 170, in page 45, line 33, after 'Act', insert 'independent', and 238, in page 45, line 35, leave out 'principal'.

The Solicitor-General

New Clause 8 is the first of three which deal with the special register, the consequences of registration and the establishment of the special register. The object of the three, and new Clause 8 in particular, is to find a place in the Bill for organisations which are not primarily concerned with industrial relations but nevertheless play an important role in industrial relations. These provisions have been framed following representations from a number of professional organisations, but it is important to appreciate that the special register is not being established for professional organisations as such.

Professional organisations, for example, which have the regulation of industrial relations as a principal object can register as a trade union and nonprofessional organisations can register under the new Clause. The reason for the establishment of the special register is to deal with organisations which are not primarily concerned with the regulation of industrial relations but have nevertheless developed an important industrial relations role. The provisions will probably be of value to these professional organisations mainly because, while they have other primary objectives, they are nevertheless exercising an increasing role in collective bargaining and representation of workers.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to itemise one or two organisations so that we can get the spirit and flavour of what he is proposing?

The Solicitor-General

I cannot itemise them, but a number of bodies are likely to be affected, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association—that kind of body. I have explained why this kind of provision is necessary by reference to illustrations of that kind. The position is that a body which has got status as a chartered body or as a body which is already registered as a limited company is not capable, either under the law as it stands or under the Bill, of registration as a trade union. A body with a charter, such as the Royal College of Nursing, must, in order to acquire its charter, have as its principal object the promotion of the public good and cannot have as one of its principal objects the advancement of the interests of its members. Therefore, a chartered body of that kind cannot register under the existing law, nor would it be able to do so under future law without the new Clauses.

4.0 p.m.

Similarly, a body registered as a limited company under the Companies Acts cannot register as a trade union either under the law as it stands, because of the provisions of Section 5 of the 1871 Act, or under the law as it will emerge from Clause 141 of the Bill. Yet there are in existence bodies of both the kinds to which I have referred either operating under charter or as limited companies which exercise the function of regulating industrial relations, and it is desirable for those bodies—for organisations of that kind which engage in collective bargain- ing—to be able to exercise the rights conferred on trade unions under the Bill and to accept the obligations imposed on trade unions under the Bill. The Bill confers rights and defines obligations, and it is right that bodies of the kind which I have mentioned should be similarly affected.

Therefore, the effect of the new Clause and of the establishment of the special register is to allow organisations which are chartered or registered companies to be entered on the special register provided they satisfy the Registrar that they are engaged in the regulation of relations between workers and employers and provided they fulfil the other obligations for eligibility as a trade union under the ordinary registration provisions.

The only difference between the qualifications for inclusion on the special register, apart from chartered or company status, is that the regulation of relations need not be a principal object of the organisation, provided its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers. Once such an organisation is entered in the special register, it is to be treated as a trade union for the purposes of the Bill and it retains its existing obligations under its charter or company registration. There are, therefore, certain overlapping obligations—for example, in respect of the preparation of accounts—which it is not necessary to make applicable to organisations on the special register because they have comparable obligations under the Companies Act or under their charter.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

It has often been stated by the chartered engineering institutions—and I am a member of one of them—that they are precluded by their Royal Charter from acting as trade unions. It is therefore not easy to see why they should be required to register on the special register.

The Solicitor-General

That point arises more directly on one of the other new Clauses, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it now. A number of bodies of the kind we are talking about have either express or implicit limitations of the sort the hon. Gentleman mentioned. But with the passage of years they have increasingly been exercising what I might call industrial relations functions and negotiating for their members. The probability some years ago was that the exercise of those functions by them did not necessarily require them to be regarded as trade unions because of the limited definition of trade unions in the existing legislation.

I do not want to give a conclusive view on that matter because there is room for argument about it. I do not wish to pronounce on whether the bodies which the hon. Gentleman mentioned or other bodies are staying within the provisions which regulate their present organisation. In the context of this legislation, a number of bodies of that kind are exercising their negotiating rights, or are seeking to do so, on behalf of their members, and the Government's intention is that they should continue to be able to do so under the Bill. There may be different questions to be considered in relation to different organisations, but, if they register on the special register, they are to be treated as trade unions for the purposes of the Bill and they are to be required to fulfil the same obligations, subject to the detailed omissions to which we shall come in new Clause No. 10. There are certain provisions which it is not necessary to apply twice.

The obligation in Clause 61—that the organisation should conform with the guiding principles—will apply to these organisations on the special register. Because of their special nature, by virtue of their charter and by other obligations with which they have to conform in order to retain their chartered status, they may be precluded from undertaking certain activities. That is a matter for them and their present constitution. But, as long as they match up to the conditions I have mentioned—that they regulate relations between employers and workers, that they are independent and that their rules and everything else qualify them for registration —the Government feel it right for them to be entitled to this form of registration.

The provisions of new Clause No. 8 and those which follow are limited either to bodies which are already registered as limited companies or to bodies which achieve chartered status. There is an Amendment dealing with the fact that that provision is not confined to bodies which already have chartered status. The reason for that, which we can discuss later, is that there are no doubt some organisations which aspire to chartered status which regulate relations between workers and employers. If they acquire chartered status, they could transfer to the register if that was necessary. They would have to conform with the conditions of their charter and with the provisions laid down in the new Clause and the associated Clauses.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

Would an organisation registered on the special register have any freedoms or abilities denied to organisations not so registered? For example, would an organisation on the special register be able, if its rules so provided, to operate a pre-entry closed shop?

The Solicitor-General

No freedom of that kind is conferred. The point of the Bill as drafted was that certain organisations are recognisably performing trade union functions, and it was represented to the Government that they were precluded from registration and qualification for the rights and other matters applying to trade unions. Our proposal is designed to admit them to a register specially designed to have regard to the fact that they are differently constituted. There is no intention of giving them rights which an ordinary trade union would not have under the legislation.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

The Solicitor-General said that it was proposed to limit the provisions to bodies already registered as limited companies, leaving the chartered point aside for the moment. If it is not necessary to have this special combination of function—the limited company and the negotiating function—in the future why is it necessary to give it special treatment now?

The Solicitor-General

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising that point. A number of organisations exist with a limited company status which are subject to rules on accounts and matters regulating their financial structure, and to require them to reconstitute and restructure themselves would cause great inconvenience for no advantage. It might be very difficult for them to effect a transformation of that kind. The intention is to enable them, operating in this field as they do now, to continue operating, but not to leave open the possibility of additional bodies of that kind corning into existince. The charter point, as the right hon. Lady appreciates, is rather different.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the question of the closed shop, will he say whether it will be possible for an organisation on the special register to engage in an approved closed shop agreement?

The Solicitor-General

Yes, that is right, if it qualified by the same tests, but, for the purposes of those provisions, as for, any other provision except where excluded, the term "trade union" includes a body registered on the special register, but it would have to meet the tests and qualifications we discussed on new Clause 1 and the new Schedule.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester Blackley)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the pre-entry closed shop provisions apply to the pre-entry conditions of, for example, membership of the Bar Council, which must date at least three years before one enters the profession, with a host of complicated rules and regulations?

The Solicitor-General

There are no provisions requiring membership of the Bar Council as part of the means of access to practising at the Bar. The Bar Council is a professional organisation, membership of which is voluntary, and there is no requirement to belong to it. I know that at least 10 per cent. of practising members of the Bar do not belong to the Bar Council and I have been concerned in trying to analyse why. Membership of the Bar Council is not a precondition either for entry to the profession or for continued practice in the profession. The same is true of the other professional organisations with which we are concerned.

The structure of the new Clause is that subsection (1) establishes the special register—

Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton)

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, suppose the Bar Council could apply for registration on the special register and then decided to go for an approved closed shop, what would be the position then?

The Solicitor-General

I do not think that the Bar Council, because of the nature of what it does, would qualify for inclusion on the special register anyway, but any organisation which is included on the special register can apply for a closed shop. The reason why the Bar Council could not do so is that the Bar Council deals with self-employed people on separate contracts, and does not normally regulate relations between members of the Bar and an employer of the kind to which the new Clause 1 closed shop provisions would apply. I repeat that the General Council of the Bar is an organisation of which membership is voluntary. One is called to the Bar and qualified for the Bar through the educational institutions of the Inns of Court, and one is not a member of those. They are not in any sense an organisation comparable to those covered by the Bill. The professional association, of which membership is voluntary, is the General Council of the Bar, the British Medical Association, or a number of other bodies of that kind, and it is to that kind of organisation, if it qualifies under the new Clause, that these provisions are intended to apply.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

Since some doubt has been expressed on whether the Bar Council would be covered by this provision, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the question in relation to the British Medical Association, since there is no doubt that the B.M.A. is the sort of body for whom the special register is provided. If the B.M.A. were to seek to secure special closed shop rights, would it be able to do so in a way which would preclude, for example, the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association from negotiating on behalf of its members, since this—and I assume the same would apply in certain other public service employment—would be overriding what is now a power of the Minister? At present. the Minister can say who he negotiates with, and frequently refuses to recognise bodies such as the J.H.D.A. Would it not be totally at variance with the main theme of the legislation if the creation of a special register were to debar people from negotiating on behalf of their members in an organisation such as the J.H.D.A.?

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

It is difficult to be confident that I can give absolutely the right answer in connection with a whole variety of different competing recognition situations that might arise. The intention of the legislation is to enable recognition disputes and, following on from those, applications for an agency shop or a closed shop, to be resolved through the machinery of the legislation by the C.I.R., and so on. The intention is that any bodies which exercise bargaining rights, in the many fields which one could consider, should have equal access to that machinery for resolution in the light of what the C.I.R. judges to be right. I have not had an opportunity of studying the constitution of the J.H.D.A., but I suspect that it is already capable of qualification as a workers' organisation, indeed, it may be registered as such—I do not know. Certainly if it is not a company or a chartered body, it would be able to assert its rights through the recognition machinery.

On the other hand, the B.M.A. could not. All we are doing is ensuring that those organisations which represent different and possibly overlapping ends of the medical spectrum should have equal rights to claim recognition and have recognition disputes resolved for them through the bargaining machinery.

I can think of a comparable situation between the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Royal College of Nursing, where they are organising the same Field Without the special registration provisions, C.O.H.S.E. would be in and the R.C.N. would be out. The intention is to enable the opportunity of seeking recognition to be available to all bodies which can rightly claim to organise workers in a given field.

If I may just go back to the B.M.A. point and the closed shop provision, B.M.A. is a voluntary association of doctors. It is like other professional organisations and, as the hon. Member knows, some people belong to the B.M.A., some do not and others belong to the J.H.D.A. instead. It is, therefore, the kind of organisation for which these provisions are intended.

If I may finish my exposition of the shape of the new Clause, subsection (2) indicates the kind of organisation which qualifies, that is to say, the pre-Act company or chartered body. Subsections (3) and (5) make it plain that access to the new register is restricted to an organisation which engages in the regulation of relations between workers and employers, which is an independent organisation and which has control over its rules and funds. Subsection (4) makes comparable provision for federations. It is upon this basis—that the special register, with the other Clauses that deal with it, provides access to the same opportunities and subjection to the same obligations as are available for other workers' organisations for bodies which qualify in this way—that I commend the Clause to the House.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

The Opposition are suspicious of the new Clause and the associated Amendments.

The first hint that the clause was being conceived by the Government came in the reply to a Question in another place by Lord Janner, to which Lord Windlesham replied on 28th January, 1971, to the effect that it had been decided to introduce an Amendment to the Industrial Relations Bill in the House of Commons to enable professional organisations which have a negotiating function to be placed on a special register and thereby benefit from all the privileges accorded to trade unions by the Bill.

One balks somewhat at this confirming of the ambit to the according of privileges to the especially chosen professional associations. That is a major ground on which we feel suspicion about the Clause and its associated Amendments. We wish to press strongly to discover what duties specifically—not in general terms—will be imposed upon bodies which are registered in the special register. What disabilities will they suffer?

Fundamentally, the Opposition reject a Bill which produces classes of professional or negotiating bodies. We are entirely against that. We accept the idea that there should be negotiations in industry about conditions of employment and that these should spread as widely as the need exists. But we feel that it should be on a basis of equality. If trade unionism is important for the industrial worker and has something to offer the white-collar worker, it should be the same trade unionism and not one of superior and special brand. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) in Committee on 9th February. We wish to press a number of questions. I stress that we want clear answers to them. If we do not have clear answers, I am certain that the Opposition will vote against the Clause and its associated Amendments.

Is the special register a mechanism to extend trade unionism, or is it a mechanism to confine trade unionism, as we ordinarily describe it, to the strictly industrial sphere? What are the motives for introducing the Amendments? Are they to set up a barrier to prevent the spread of trade unionism in the white-collar domain? Those suspicions cannot be resolved unless we know specifically which bodies were referred to by Lord Windlesham as pressing for special privileges, and what their interest is.

Following the new Clause and Amendments is a difficult task for it is a very complicated matter at this stage of the Bill, but if one tries one's best, as I have, to discover what categories are comprised in the special register, one finds that we seem to have four categories.

First, there are independent organisations of workers, which regulate relations with employers and have power to alter their own rules, and so on, which were registered as companies under the Companies Act, 1948, prior to the commencement of the Industrial Relations Bill and are accepted for registration within six months of that commencement. There are no such things. As I understand it, strictly speaking, trade unions could not register as companies because they were excluded by Section 5 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, and by Section 459(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, But there may be employers' organisations or professional associations that we have heard about today, mentioned by Lord Windlesham in the other place, which may or may not be independent organisations of workers. We do not know. We cannot tell until we know which they are and why they wish to be put on the special register.

The second category is independent organisations, as I have mentioned, which are not registered under the Companies Act but are incorporated by charter, as the new Clause provides, … whether Granted before or after the passing of this Act. An Opposition Amendment dealing with that will be moved later. I refer to it in passing. Are the Government proposing to grant charters in future to bodies which come along and, for one technical reason or another, cannot register as trade unions? Shall we find that, where it suits the Government, closed shops will be circumvented and bypassed by the granting of charters to bodies, but also where it suits them, they will leave privileged bodies in their position of privilege and not grant them charters?

The third category is similar. It is independent organisations not registered under the Companies Act but incorporated by letters patent. Again the same proviso applies … whether granted before or after the passing of this Act. The same question must be asked. What is the point? Why have registered companies to stop suddenly with the coming into effect of the Bill—at least concerning workers' organisations—but chartered bodies and bodies incorporated by letters patent will apparently continue to be created after the Bill. For what purpose?

The fourth category is parent organisations whose constituent organisations are either trade unions in the ordinary sense, within the meaning of the Bill, or organisations entered in the special register. That raises no question—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Can my hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the disqualifications which exist in the first category that he mentioned? There were two disqualifications to which he referred in legislation already on the Statute Book. What are those two disqualifications?

Mr. Murray

It would be more convenient to deal with that at a later stage.

The obvious result of the terminology, looking at these categories, and not knowing precisely which anonymous bodies are pressing for this, is that one is bound to see that a distinction which stands out is a class distinction between special and ordinary trade unions. That is quite unnecessary.

Opposition Amendment No. 238 deals with this specific point. This matter hangs on Clause 57, and the purpose of Opposition Amendment No. 238 is to delete the word "principal", and if one does that, the category described in Clause 57(1)(a) would be an organisation of workers which consists wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation whose objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description … and so on. Thus it would appear that if effect were given to Opposition Amendment No. 238, there would be no need for the special register.

One of the explanations put forward by the Government for this special register is that the constitution, or founding charter, or letters patent, or the articles of association and memorandum of a company, are such that they might not come under the description of Clause 57(1)(a) and so be accorded what is said to be a privilege of being a trade union in terms of the Industrial Relations Bill. The answer would appear to be a recasting of the Bill. That does not seem to be a terribly difficult exercise. At this stage of this greatly confused and chopped around Bill, anything is a difficult exercise but there is nothing to stop this type of Amendment being carried through to its logical conclusion, which would have the happy result that, instead of creating a new and privileged—that is the word used by Lord Windlesham in the other place—category of bodies registered under the Bill, we should have one single class of registered workers' organisations.

4.30 p.m.

I want to point that moral, because there are three classes of workers' bodies under the Bill. It is not just a two-fold division but a three-fold division of class. We started off right at the beginning of the discussion on the Bill with the distinction between organisations of workers which were registered under the Bill and organisations of workers which were not. This was a class distinction which we objected to from the first and which we continue to press. So there are workers' organisations which are out in the cold because they refuse to or cannot register under the Bill, for one reason or another. That is the lowest class. The middle class is an ordinary trade union in the sense of a trade union which registers under the Bill. Then there is the upper class, and it is as clear as a bell what that is: these are the people who get on to the special register.

If there were doubt about that, the Government themselves have underlined this class distinction because the Government Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 make it clear that a body which is a workers' organisation registered in the special register is different from a workers' organisation which is registered as a trade union. Similarly, a distinction is drawn between bodies which are registered under the terms of the special register Clause and organisations of employers registered under the Bill.

The removal of these invidious class distinctions can be made by giving effect by both Opposition Amendments which are being discussed with the Clause. No. 238, to which I have already referred, deals with the deletion of "principal" from Clause 57(1)(a). Opposition Amendment No. 170 obviously suffers from the defect of a misprint. The purpose of the Amendment is to insert "independent" before "organisation" in the second line of Clause 57. It is obvious that "an" has been mistyped as "Act". I shall address the House on the assumption that the effect of the Amendment would be to insert "independent" between "an" and "organisation" at the beginning of Clause 57.

These two Amendments together bring us back to the conception which has animated the Opposition throughout—that, if there is to be an Industrial Relations Bill of this kind and quality it should at least be egalitarian and have the same effect for all and should not create class distinctions within the field of negotiating terms and conditions of employment. It should, rather, eliminate such distinctions.

If it is intended to set out to improve industrial relations—it is hard to see the Bill as being a convincing expedient in that light—I should have thought that an effort would have been made to achieve a negotiating machinery which could be effective and which could spread its advantages to all sections of employment, upwards into the white collar level and outwards into other directions where at the moment trade unionism is weak because the nature of the employment is weak. If it is a good negotiating machinery, sufficiently satisfactory to have the State's backing in a Bill of this kind, should we not ensure that all have the advantage of it? Should we not ensure that the privileges are for all and that the duties and disabilities are the same for all?

If it is the case that any Government are likely to pursue a prices and incomes policy, either openly or secretly—a prominent member of the Government said something to that effect the other day just before the newspapers went off on the 18th March—it does not help to create the right sort of adjustment between different kinds and descriptions of employees, involving differentials and the rest to have different strata of negotiating machinery and different classes of unions and professional bodies; because that will make negotiation and adjustment between these levels all the more difficult.

I turn now to question the significance of Government Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 which refer to Clause 141, which was sufficiently obscure without Amendments guaranteed not to dispel the darkness but, rather, to increase it. It is difficult to work out the significance of Amendment No. 99. I believe that there is some incoherence in it and that possibly it is meant to amend Clause 141 by leaving out all after "any of those Acts". If the Clause is read in that sense, the Clause as amended would seem to say, first, No organisation of workers shall after the commencement of this Act, and no employers' association shall after being registered as an employers' association under this Act, become registered— (a) as a company under the Companies Act 1948". I shall leave out the rest, because I want to concentrate simply on the point about companies.

Subsection (2) would read: Any registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, where the registration was effected before the commencement of this Act—

  1. (a) shall become void at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which section (Application for entry in special register) of this Act comes into operation, unless before the end of that period the organisation makes an application for entry in the special register, and
  2. (b) if such an application is so made, shall become void if on that application entry in the special register is refused."
Then subsection (3) would be: (3) Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (1) of this section, shall be void. I take it that that is what the Amendment is intended to achieve. Is subsection (3) intended to have the drastic effect that it seems to have, because it seems literally to say that no registration under the Companies Act, 1948 can continue after the Bill becomes law? I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I ask the Government Front Bench to consider if that is not what they have said.

The Solicitor-General

The provision would read as follows: "Any registration", and then would be inserted the matters the hon. and learned Gentleman has already dealt with and which would be interposed by Amendment No. 99. Then subsection (3) would go on in this way: Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (1) of this section and then we go back to paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) as it stands— (a) of an organisation of workers … (b) of an employers' association … shall be void. In other words, the whole of the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) in subsection (2) remain.

Mr. Murray

I should have thought that that is what is intended, but it is a tortuous exercise. That subsection might by itself cause a good deal of alarm in the hearts of some company secretaries if they saw it by itself and unclothed by the rest of the obscure garments by which Clause 141 is now covered. At present a trade union cannot be a company because of Section 5 of the Trades Unions Act, 1881, which provided that the Companies Acts shall not apply to any trade union and the registration of any trade union thereunder "shall be void".

That is the first obstacle about which my hon. Friend asked me.

The second one is Section 459(9,b) of the Companies Act, 1948, which can be paraphrased as saying that nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section 5 of the Trades Unions Act, 1871, which voids the registration of a trade union under the enactments relating to companies.

Putting the two obstacles together, one finds that, following the definition of the 1871 Act as amended, neither can a trade union under existing law become a registered company, nor can a company act as a trade union. There was a case in the city of Edinburgh in about 1903 where the matter of a company acting as a trade union was considered by the courts. They reached the conclusion, which has stood unchallenged ever since, that if a company acts as a trade union it voids its registration as a company. That is the ultimate deterrent to companies becoming trade unions.

Taking the present law, it is fairly obvious that a body needs three Acts, until this Bill becomes law, to come within the definition of a trade union. It has to take the 1871 Act, the 1876 Act and the 1913 Act. Taken together, they provide a clear and coherent definition of a trade union. As I understand it, the repeal of the 1871 Act, which is what the present Bill does, will knock the bottom out of that. Therefore, were it not for the express provisions of Clause 141 as amended, it would be open to a trade union to seek to register as a company, and one does not have to extend one's imagination very far to see that underprivileged, excluded, third-world trade unionists who are left as an organisation of workers with no privilege of registration may well think that a clever way out of their liabilities is to register as a company limited by guarantee. In the event of their being found guilty of an unfair industrial practice, they could escape liability by this means. However, that possibility has been excluded, and this may have led to the obscure Amendment to Clause 141. But it is clear that once Clause 141 goes through we have a new barrier which prevents trade unions from becoming companies.

We are left with the two classes: trade unions which have objects which can bring them into the ordinary category of registered unions within the meaning of the Bill, and these other strange bodies which are pressing for special status and now being accorded it by the Clause.

I want to press again the need for the Government to come clean on this matter and tell us who these bodies are. One can imagine a number of professional bodies which may wish to gain privileges through the Bill. The British Medical Association is one which has been mentioned. Chartered bodies are mentioned. I do not know whether the Confederation of British Industry, which is incorporated by Royal Charter, is a body which wants special privileges under the Bill. Chartered secretaries are also a possibility. There are various bodies; N.A.L.G.O., D.A.T.A. and various others.

We want to hear about them, and we also want to know what is to be the position of professional bodies or associations whose charters or letters patent in effect give them a closed shop. What is to happen to them once they are registered on the special register? I have in mind chartered accountants and professional bodies of that kind. It will not do merely to say that they may get closed shop provisions of the limited kind now provided in the Bill, because it may be that the charters or letters patent of these institutions already provide a preordained closed shop.

Do the Government intend that letters patent or charters of that kind should be struck at by the Bill? If so, why does not the Bill say so? Why does not it give a power to alter the terms of the charter or letters patent so as to deny this oblique way of enforcing the closed shop? As my lion. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, this may be a method of introducing a pre-entry closed shop, although the Bill says that it is not doing that.

4.45 p.m.

I end by asking for answers to four specific questions. First, why do we need a special register at all if the intion is to spread the advantages of trade union negotiating machinery generally through the population? Why not proceed, as we suggest, by amending Clause 57 and the other ordinary Clauses of the Bill?

Second, will the Government spell out the duties as well as the privileges of bodies entered on the special register? I do not ask the Government to go through the Clauses in general terms, but I hope that we shall be told what basic duties these bodies will share with trade unions.

Thirdly, to repeat my earlier question, I ask the Government to name the bodies which have been pressing for this provision. If the Government have not sufficient courage to name them, we are entitled to know the categories of people who are pressing for this and what their motivation is.

Fourthly, will the Government explain why this special status is being conferred? Is it a mechanism hiding behind the obscure and relatively unknown terms of Royal Charters and letters patent which are not easily accessible to the public? It is possible to look at the Companies Register and get some idea of what a company is doing. One can gain access to its memorandum and articles of association. One can do something of the kind with registered bodies of all kinds. Under the Bill, one can do it with a registered trade union. But what about these bodies on the special register? How does one find what they are about and why they exist?

If we are not provided with specific answers to those questions, I am certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the new Clause.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I support the new Clause, and I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's presentation of it. It appears to deal with a very small group of employed persons. If it is intended mainly to deal with professional bodies, except in the hospital world, the local government world, and so on, not very many people will be covered by it.

It will take a tremendous effort on the part of the Opposition to keep the debate on these three Clauses going until midnight. When there are still so many other parts of the Bill which deserve greater discussion and explanation, it is a pity that so much time should be spent on three narrow Clauses. They could have been dealt with together in two or three hours, giving us further time for the discussion of other points. I do not say that from a party point of view. I merely think that it is a pity that more time was not given for discussion of other matters. However, I imagine that when the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends discussed the time table Motion, they decided that this was how they wanted to spend the time devoted to Report stage. They are wasting a great deal of time.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) had to work very hard. He fell below his normal extremely high standard of debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been a 100 per cent. success story in his speeches up to now so far as I am concerned. But this afternoon he dragged in a lot of spurious class-consciousness which he must have been scratching around for over the weekend to try to bring in some party aspect.

Mr. Murray

It is not my special register. It is right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who want a special register.

Mr. Page

No. It is unfortunately the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. The special register does not have these distinctions.

On a slightly different note, referring specially to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. and learned Member for Leith it might be appropriate to say in the House how much we all hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) will recover from the serious accident in which he was involved on Saturday. We shall look forward to hearing good reports.

The hon. and learned Member for Leith said that he was hoping that the new Industrial Relations Bill would produce egalitarianism and the same for all. That is what the new Clause proposes. There is only one privileged organisation of workers in the Bill: those trade unions which take upon themselves the privileges given by registration. Instead of having an underprivileged group of workers which could not be represented by registered trade unions, the new Clause is providing this special register which will allow this under-privileged group to receive the same treatment as the rest of the organisations of workers which have been dealt with in the Bill.

This business of lower class, middle class and upper class seems good knockabout fun, but it is below the normal standard of the hon. and learned Gentleman's contributions to debates.

Will my hon. and learned Friend, when he winds up or as early as possible, say that the registrar who puts organisations on the special register will expect no lower standards of rules, accountability, balloting for the election of officers, and so on, than is expected in the registration of other organisations of workers?

The Solicitor-General

indicated assent.

Mr. Page

Provided that we can have that assurance, which the nod from my hon. and learned Friend appears to indicate, I think that this small but important new Clause—important to a small group of people—should be passed on the nod.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggested that the Government should name one or two of the bodies and organisations which this secondary register would fit. I am glad that he did. But before getting a reply from the Government I should like to mention one such body.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) tried to move an Amendment, many weeks ago now, which we shot down in flames because it did not cover the point. The organisation which I have in mind is U.K.A.P.E. which, under the Clause, would be allowed to register. U.K.A.P.E. is the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers. For some time it has been in bitter dispute with D.A.T.A.—the Draughtsmen's and Allied Technicians' Association. D.A.T.A. is often mentioned by hon. Members opposite because it is a very militant Left-wing union which has had a great deal of success in negotiations and in establishing wage claims.

About three months ago U.K.A.P.E. sent a delegation to this House to see Members on this side who had been active in the engineering industry. U.K.A.P.E. were worried that under the Bill, with the 51 per cent. ballot for the sole bargaining unit, it would be virtually put out of existence, because it knew that if people in drawing offices took a ballot as to which union should represent them D.A.T.A. would be the overwhelming choice of 80 or 90 per cent. of the engineering staff—or, where appropriate, they may choose A.S.T.M.S., or another union.

U.K.A.P.E. is only two years old, but it has had great success in recruiting members because it is backed by the bosses who provide the finance for it to stump the country to recruit members. No doubt the success of U.K.A.P.E. would tend to go without this backing. However, it is not the first union to try to draw members in the engineering industry. There used to be one called the F.M.B.—the Foremen's Mutual Benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) had a Private Member's Bill seeking to have this body put out of existence. It used to be compulsory for any man to join that union who obtained promotion. Before a man was offered promotion to foreman he had to agree to join the F.M.B. and the firm would give him a 5s. a week increase to join, but he could not belong to another union. It was virtually a superannuation scheme which was paid out to foremen without them paying into it. The one condition was that a member could not belong to another union. Such staff unions have been tried in the past. U.K.A.P.E. is a direct descendant of them because it has a "no strike" clause in its rules.

When members of that organisation came to see hon. Members here three months ago they said that their members were keeping the sewage works open. The terrible municipal workers were out on strike fighting for a wage of about £17 a week and bringing the country into all kinds of chaos, but the members of U.K.A.P.E., because of their dedication to duty and the way that they viewed their jobs, were keeping the sewage works open. They asked us to lend our support to them so that their union would not go out of existence. They were so worried that they got the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) to put down an Amendment which they drew up. The hon. Lady, about 10 to 12 one night, moved that Amendment formally. Unfortunately, she may not have had experience of the engineering industry. The U.K.A.P.E. had written out a very complicated Amendment and it chose the hon. Member for Tynemouth to sponsor it because it had a major dispute in her area. D.A.T.A. refused to work with members of U.K.A.P.E. at Parsons, the argument being that people who belonged to the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers were eligible to join D.A.T.A. and there was no reason for them not joining. It was merely a class excuse to form another union. This leads to a proliferation of unions in industry. So, instead of aiming for one union, which Donovan suggests, we have a situation where unions begin to fragment.

Early in February the hon. Member for Tynemouth was asked not to push her Amendment. The Government spokesman, in effect, said: "Leave it with us and on Report we will bring something back". Much the same was said about the Equity proposals which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pushed. He was told that the Government would bring something back, which they did on Monday last week when they brought in the closed shop proposal. The Government said that they would bring something back to look after associations and organisations such as the U.K.A.P.E., and this is what we have today.

Without the Amendment anybody could establish a sole bargaining unit with 51 per cent. of the ballot. In most cases this would be D.A.T.A. But with the secondary register, if a firm wish to recognise a union which has not got 51 per cent. of the ballot but towards which it feels particularly favoured, it can do so under the Amendment. In other words, the firm could say that although the A.E.F. or D.A.T.A. had obtained 80 per cent. of the ballot and it therefore had to recognise them, it also wished to recognise a small, selective union which looked after the bosses, because it was on the special register.

5.0 p.m.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will make it clear that, if a firm wishes to grant recognition, even if only 2 per cent. of the members vote for it, there is nothing to stop the firm doing so. This might seem a good thing, but it puts a tremendous amount of selection in the hands of the firm, which could say, "Two per cent. wish to join the Transport and General Workers' Union. We are not recognising that, and you cannot make us. But if 2 per cent. of you want to join U.K.A.P.E., the bosses' union, on this other professional register, we can recognise that."

Mr. John Page

The hon. Member has produced so many half-truths that I would have to make another speech, much longer than my previous one, to correct them. But on one point, is he clear that U.K.A.P.E. or any of these other organisations could not register on the special register unless it was independent? He keeps on talking of bosses' unions. If it was, so to speak, a staff association, it would be impossible for it to register.

Mr. Ashton

Yes, but proving independence is very difficult. There would be nothing to stop it registering on the first register, as any union can do. This is our argument. Why do we need this second register at all? The difficulty is that, after it had lost 51 per cent. of the ballot on the first register, it would have no way of saying, "We are different, and we should have a special relationship with the bosses".

The union which I have mentioned is a bosses' union. The people campaigning for membership around the country are highly qualified engineers capable of earning £3,000 to £4,000 minimum. With 8,000 members, they cannot pay the salaries of these people on subscriptions of 2s. 6d. a week. The money just is not there. So someone must be financing it, as someone financed the Rookes v. Barnard case. To give them their brutal name, these are bogus unions.

What concerns us is that loopholes which we might have exploited are being blocked, but other loopholes are being opened for bogus unions to demand a special relationship, because they have a no-strike clause or they do not belong to the T.U.C. or they do not have a conference at which decisions are made democratically. They do not take part in wage negotiations, but are a small, exclusive freemasonry and are demanding special rights.

If the Solicitor-General can convince us that this is not so, we shall be gratified, but we will want to know why the special register is needed if no privilege attaches to it. Why is it needed, unless there are some privileges or favours which can be obtained on it which do not apply to ordinary rank-and-file unions?

Mr. Michael Grylls (Chertsey)

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) talked about the class structure of the different unions or bodies which would seek registration under the Bill. I cannot think that he meant this seriously, although his speech was interesting and attractive to listen to. It is just not true. The object of the new Clause is to open the privileges of the Bill to a wider membership or wider number of bodies which the people concerned are operating in industry, and this seems a laudable aim. We are trying to get away from any narrow structure of class; this is one of the things about the Clause which I welcome.

The hon. and learned Member asked the Government Front Bench for a comment on the possibility that new chartered bodies in the future would be put on the special register. I thought that he was hoping for the Government to say that no new chartered bodies would be allowed on. This is a foolish request. Surely everyone recognises that, with technology changing so fast, new professional bodies will be created to deal with new techniques and sciences. Why should they be excluded, to the advantage perhaps of older bodies like the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the B.M.A. and so on? Surely it is right to open these provisions wide. I hope that the Government will not give such an assurance.

The hon. and learned Member also asked that the Government should give some names of bodies which they would see as certain candidates for this special register. That would be very difficult, because what the new Clause does is lay down the rights, the gateways through which people can apply, and it would then be left to the Registrar, an independent person, to decide whether they were suitable. I hope that the Government will not be tempted on this.

This is similar to our debates on new Clause 1, which laid down narrow conditions for the closed shop. If people could meet them, they would get the special privileges, and vice versa. If they meet the conditions in this new Clause, they will be eligible for the special register. This is a useful addition to the Bill in the wider context of industry, and I welcome it.

Mr. Palmer

I want to speak about the new Clause and the special register from the point of view of professional and associated engineers. It will be a potential danger in my view to many reputable unions in engineering who have done a vast amount of work in setting up steady and good collective bargaining over many years. In profes- sional engineering, there are connected with or in membership of the Council of Engineering Institutions about a dozen chartered bodies. The principal ones are the older institutions—the Civils, the Mechanicals and the Electricals.

I have an interest, in that I am a member of the Electricals. Those bodies have always said—this is why I intervened in the Solicitor-General's speech—that their Royal Charters precluded them from taking part in collective bargaining and from exercising trade union functions. Their work is therefore confined to their true purpose, advancing science and technology in their own specialist fields.

Therefore, to look after the collective bargaining interests of professional and non-professional engineers, a number of bodies have grown up over the years such as D.A.T.A., of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is a member, N.A.L.G.O., in local government, and the I.P.C.S., in the Civil Service. There is also my own union in electricity supply—I declare my interest —the Electrical Power Engineers' Association, which organises professional and non-professional engineers and technical staff generally. We have had no competition with the chartered institutions, hitherto, because they have been looking after solely professional, technical and scientific matters and also education and examinations.

If this special register is set up, is it to be said that chartered institutions are to take to themselves trade union bargaining powers, and seek to deal with matters which have been very responsibly dealt with until now by bodies which have concentrated on collective bargaining? That would be extremly unfair to such bodies as the E.P.E.A., I.P.C.S., D.A.T.A. and N.A.L.G.O. I can hardly believe that the chartered institutions wish to do this, but it would be interesting to know whether any chartered engineering institutions have asked for such a Clause as this, and whether they propose, if they go on the special register, to engage, for the first time in their history, apparently, and in defiance of their own Royal Charters, in collective bargaining

It is now the Government's intention that all existing registered trade unions will automatically by law be placed on the provisional register. Does that mean that the power engineers or local government engineers, will automatically be placed on the normal register and be precluded from the special register, while other bodies can go on? If we leave the chartered institutions out, a limited company union like U.K.A.P.E., a very recently established body, can be given special recognition—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's initial point is that unions recognised at present will go on the provisional register automatically, and after that it will be a matter for the Registrar.

Mr. Palmer

Does not the hon. Gentleman see, then, what an advantage in terms of recruitment there will be for, perhaps, the chartered institutions in some circumstances, or a limited company like the U.K.A.P.E., not being registered already as normal trade unions, to be put in the apparently privileged position of going on a special register? That would be grossly unfair to other bodies which have organised professional engineers for many years—

Mr. John Page

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what difference there is between the privileges of those on the provisional register and those on the special register? The privileges are identical.

Mr. Palmer

Those bodies will get a special advantage in recruitment in my view. The U.K.A.P.E., for instance, which sets out to organise employees, not according to their work but entirely according to their professional qualifications, might gain admittance to the special register and would then, in the matter of recruitment, be attractive to chartered engineers, who for many years have been looked after by other long-established unions.

These Johnny-come-latelys have done none of the hard work of building up over the years sound collective bargaining arrangements, and it will be wrong if they are to be given the advantages of a special register. I can hardly believe that this will add to the stability of trade unionism in professional engineering.

These points should be cleared up. I certainly want to underline what was said earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), that we have a right to know what other bodies, apart from the B.M.A. and the Royal College of Nursing, are now anxious for the first time to become collective bargaining organisations. If they do not wish to become collective bargaining organisations, it is hard to see why we need the new Clause at all and if they do then they are unfairly duplicating the work of trade unions that have hitherto specialised in these fields.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

As I intend to abstain from a Division on the new Clause, if one is called, it is only right and fair to my right hon. Friend that I should give my reasons. My abstention is dictated by the fact that the Government have failed to stem the tide of terrorists coming from the Republic into Northern Ireland at present. That being so, I feel that I must abstain from this Division and every other Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. The hon. Member must observe at least the subject with which the Bill is concerned. Mr. Loughlin.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)


Mr. McNamara

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has just made a comment, but the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. There, the trade unions already have enough disabilities, and will have more in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. Mr. Loughlin.

Mr. Loughlin

Will the Solicitor-General make quite clear whether subsection (3,b) of the new Clause applies only to an organisation operating at the present time and before it goes on the register, or whether it will be able to take part in those activities subsequent to going on the register?

The same question can he asked of paragraph (b) of subsection (4) where one reads … its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers …". The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) will be very valid if, subsequent to their going on a special register, organisations so registered will be able to initiate that kind of activity.

The Solicitor-General

In answer to the central point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), I make it entirely clear that there is no intention at all in this provision of creating different classes of trade unionism or anything like that. The motive and object of the exercise is to permit the expansion and growth of trade unionism for all classes, be they white-collar, blue-collar or any other kind of workers, and to enable the organisations that either exist now or will come into existence to continue to expand, and to represent those who wish to be represented by them.

It is in no sense the object of these measures to confine trade unionism. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) said, the purpose is to extend the scope of trade unionism.

The difference of definition that is made, for example, by Amendments Nos. 60 and 61, is purely to distinguish the two kinds of organisation, so that one can see which of the provisions do not apply.

My right hon. Friend and I have been at pains to make plain to organisations which have made representations about the special register that the only thing special about it is not the kind of person for whom it is intended to cater but the kinds of organisation which happen to be in existence and which require to be accommodated within the provisions of the Bill.

A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite asked what kind of people or organisations it was intended to cater for by these provisions. The organisations which are to qualify must, of course, be independent and be carrying out regulation of relations activities at the time when they apply. An organisation would not qualify to get on to the special register unless it could show that it was performing those activities at the time.

Next, it must be an organisation consisting of workers, so that the chartered status of the C.B.I. or of a whole range of other bodies which no doubt have charters would not, of itself, entitle them to apply. It must be independent, carrying out these regulations and be an organisation consisting of workers.

Bodies like N.A.L.G.O. were mentioned. Organisations now registered under the 1871 Act are not affected by this. However, if an ordinary trade union seeks to achieve—and, in fact achieves—chartered status, as is possible with some of the organisations of which one can think, then it would not be right for it, when considering whether or not to apply for chartered status, to have to balance the possibility that it might lose its rights to represent workers whom it has heretofore represented as a trade union.

I was asked to name the sort of people and organisations with whom we are concerned. I naturally cannot give a complete chronicled list, but there are two categories. Some are registered as companies now and others as chartered bodies. Those registered as companies which already undertake collective bargaining activities for their members include, for example, the British Medical Association, British Dental Association, Royal College of Midwives and the four associations in the teaching profession: the Association of Headmasters, the Association of Headmistresses, the Association of Assistant Headmasters and the Association of Assistant Headmistresses.

I was asked about the Junior Hospital Doctors Association and said at the time that I thought that it was registerable now as an ordinary trade union. I think I was wrong and that it is a limited company. It would, therefore, come in as a company.

On the one side, therefore, we have organisations such as the B.M.A. and the others in teaching to which I referred, while on the other we have those which cannot register under this legislation because they are chartered, such as the Royal College of Nursing, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Royal Institute of Chemistry.

The Government feel that when one surveys the scene of collective bargaining as a whole, it would be wrong to require, for example, the Royal College of Nursing—as a chartered body—or the Royal College of Midwives—as a limited company—to cast on one side their chartered status. I know not for how long the Royal College of Nursing has had charter status, but I believe it is over 100 years. To have to transform that would be extremely difficult, and neither body would have the right to claim the bargaining rights and other remedies accorded under the legislation.

The suggestion underlying Amendment No. 238 has been examined by the Government, and it plainly would have been attractive if we could have devised a framework of registration that would not have required the identification of organisations on a special register, but we found that it was not possible to do that. To accept that Amendment would probably go too far in other spheres by admitting organisations with only a marginal interest and an object which might include the organisation of industrial relations. In other words, it would let in too many organisations which could not possibly qualify as trade unions and still, perhaps, would not admit some of the organisations with which we are concerned.

I acknowledge the desirability of trying to avoid this. We have looked for a means of doing so, but have not been able to find one. However, I emphasise again that this is not Grade I registration as opposed to Grade II. It is simply machinery for registering in a different way bodies of a different kind.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinbugh, Leith referred to Clause 141, which, as he said, as drawn, replaces Section 5 of the 1871 Act and the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act so as to preclude the registration of a trade union as a company under these provisions. In other words, we are establishing a new barrier to replace the old one which disappears with the repeal of the 1871 Act.

Amendment No. 99 reads as the hon. and learned Gentleman says it should, and it will have the effect that an organisation of workers registered as a company at the time of the passing of the Bill can stay so only for a period of six months, whereupon its registration will become void—that is, unless by then it has applied for, and secured, registration on the special register, which, again, will become void if it is refused entry. This is designed to give a period of time during which an organisation can reorganise to go through the new gateway, if it deserves to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) asked whether there was any distinction relating to the obligations imposed on a body on the special register. The answer is, "No". The provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 apply in exactly the same way as they do to an ordinarily registered trade union.

A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite took the opportunity of raising the problems of U.K.A.P.E. in relation to chartered engineers and so on. I do not wish to go too far outside the ambit of the Amendment in explaining this as far as U.K.A.P.E. is concerned. The position of that association is, as I understand it, that it is not registered as a company. It does not have a charter. I know not whether it is now registered under the 1871 Act, but there is no reason why it should not so register, and unless it is registered as a company—I do not know whether it is—this Clause has no provision for U.K.A.P.E., so that it will not give any special status to it.

Although my recollection was not checked by a report, in answer to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) I said that certain of her points would be dealt with by our Amendments, and some of them are. However, U.K.A.P.E. can register now. Under this legislation it would have the same rights to claim bargaining rights and to organise as any other trade union. It may have differently arranged objectives, and it would obviously depend on how far it got in recruiting members, but that would not alter the position.

If U.K.A.P.E. shows itself to be an independent organisation of workers, it will be entitled to registration and to claim its rights under the Bill. The C.I.R. would then decide to what extent it was appropriate to recognise U.K.A.P.E., D.A.T.A. or any of the other unions which compete with each other for recognition rights in this sphere. This Clause does not make any difference to them.

The hon. and learned Member for Leith then asked whether we were not enshrining some special closed shop arrangement for chartered bodies. We are not doing that by the Bill. If a chartered body were registered on the special register, it would have the same rights, neither more nor less, jointly with an employer to claim exemption under new Clause No. 1, the closed-shop provisions, that is, so far as an agreement between a special register union and the employer is concerned.

If and in so far as any chartered body is described in emotional language as operating a closed shop now because that is the only way of achieving qualifications to perform in a particular profession, that is something which arises from the role of the chartered body in regulating that profession and not as a matter of industrial relations. The House will recall that some of those professions were the subject of a Report from the Monopolies Commission published last year, in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has required various professional organisations to answer the comments made. But that is outside the scope of this legislation and within the scope of the Monopolies Commission Report which, as I say, is being processed now.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Murray

Do I understand that, whereas ordinary trade unions will have their rules subjected to examination and alteration at the hands of the Registrar, chartered bodies and bodies incorporated by letters patent will not have any such oversight?

The Solicitor-General

I am sorry if I misled the hon. and learned Gentleman. The rules will be subject to the same scrutiny under Schedule 3 and Clause 61, and the chartered organisations or companies will have to comply with the provisions of the Bill. But if and in so far as they have already been the subject of scrutiny by the Monopolies Commission, that scrutiny continues, as I have explained. There will certainly be the same kind of supervision.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) would take me a long way outside the narrow scope of this debate. Bodies like the Chartered Mechanical Engineers, the Chartered Electrical Engineers, the Chartered Civil Engineers and so on, would be able to register under these provisions if they could show, in fact, that they were regulating relations between workers and employers, if they could show—as no doubt they could—that they were independent, and if they qualified under the other provisions of the Bill.

Some of them, for example, the Royal College of Nursing, are already doing that. The other chartered bodies mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central almost certainly are not and, so far as I know—I have not been able to check on them all—the independent engineering chartered bodies have not sought special registration, although, no doubt, they have taken account of what has been going on. But even if they did at some later date begin organising industrial relations, they would still have to conform with their other obligations under their charters and so on.

Mr. Palmer

Will it be possible for a registered trade union at present in the professional field which is going on to the provisional register automatically to leave that register and apply for inclusion on the special register?

The Solicitor-General

I do not think that that is possible. Perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman later if I am wrong in my instant reply. If there is a body registered now on the ordinary register under the 1871 Act it would be a body not of the kind with which this Clause is dealing. If it is a chartered body or if it is a limited company, it could not be registered under the 1871 Act, I think, so that it would go on to the ordinary register and could not withdraw and try to come through this gateway.

The position is that no new privileges or rights will be conferred on that kind of body. This gateway is open if that kind of body qualifies under the provisions of the Clause which I have explained.

I apologise for taking a little time to answer the questions, but it is an important provision which should not be misunderstood. I emphasise that this is no special gateway for special status or special privileges. It is designed to accommodate particular kinds of organisation which are already undertaking trade union functions.

Mr. McNamara

I am sorry to take up this point now, but it will save time later if we deal with it straight away. I have listened with care to what the Solicitor-General has said about the rights and powers of the Registrar being the same. As I understand it, if the Registrar looks into the terms of the charter or letters patent or the memorandum and articles of association and he is satisfied about those, he will register.

Under Clause 64 (4) (b), the Registrar has power to insist upon "any other requirements" as a condition of registration. The subsection refers back to subsection (3), and it is in these terms: If on any such application the Registrar is satisfied …(b) that the requirements of subsection (3) of this subsection and any other requirements imposed by the Registrar as a condition of registration, have been complied with. It is hard to see how Clause 64 can be reconciled with the new Clause which we are discussing and the explanation which the Solicitor-General has given.

The Solicitor-General

I can shorten the discussion on a later point by answering that now. It is proposed to remove the words in lines 37 and 38 in Clause 64(4)(b) by an Amendment which has the unique distinction of having attracted the names of both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

The usual channels?

The Solicitor-General

Nothing to do with the usual channels. It is a springing together of two intellects on a sensible proposition. The hon. Gentleman will see that that is being brought into line with the corresponding provisions of the new Clause, and both special register bodies and ordinary register bodies will have to satisfy the Registrar that their objects and their basic nature are such that they qualify for registration, and thereafter there will be the same powers to see that their rules come in to line with Clause 61 and Schedule 3.

Mr. Heller

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the Solicitor-General were not able to spring together with the same intellectual accord on other issues. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had followed that line throughout, we could have dropped the whole Bill and come up with some sensible propositions to deal with industrial relations. None the less, we are glad that one point is accepted, and we are ready to welcome any crumb. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will now seriously consider accepting most of the other Opposition Amendments, so that we may dispense with further discussion today and wrap the whole thing up. I do not, however, think that he will be prepared to go that far.

I cannot accept the argument put by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that this is a narrow point, that we could dispense with it in a matter of minutes, let it go through on the nod, and pass to something else. That does not accord with our experience in the House. The more one goes into the various Clauses presented to us and the more one examines the Bill, the more one discovers its complexities and the more one finds out what the Government have in mind.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred to a question asked in the other place by Lord Janner and replied to by Lord Windlesham, which I had myself quoted in relation to this new Clause. Perhaps I may do the almost unforgiveable and quote what I said on that occasion: My hon. Friends and I have not yet seen the Amendment, but it is very interesting that this point was made in the other place. We are entitled to know precisely what is the position. If there is to be a special register which allows the professional associations to have the rights or privileges accorded to trade unions, that is tantamount to making trade unionism unlawful for many workers. It will cause a great deal of bitterness among trade unions, especially those which are trying to organise among the professional groups."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 321–2.] The hon. Gentleman would deny that the object of the Clause is in any way to stop the development of legitimate trade unionism, but it is worth repeating that what he has said is that there will be no special privileges to persons but that there will be something special for the kind of organisations involved.

That is the whole point. When challenged to itemise the organisations involved, the hon. Gentleman mentioned two or three. There are many others. There are the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the B.M.A. and so on. They have a number of different functions, being chartered companies or possessing letters patent, and at the same time they have a limited industrial relations function as negotiating bodies. Here these bodies will have two functions which trade unions are denied. That puts them into a special category.

It is no good the Government suggesting that they are not in a special category as a result of this provision. I accept that future bodies cannot apply under these terms and will not both be chartered companies and have trade union functions. I understand that that is covered by Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. But the existing bodies will have special privileges. As chartered companies with limited liability, under certain circumstances they could not have the maximum compensation payment imposed upon them, as a trade union can. At the same time, as they will have this special privilege they will be able to apply for the approved closed shop, the agency shop and so on.

If Conservative hon. Members believe that this will in no way stop the extension of legitimate trade unionism into fields now beginning to open up for the trade unions, and that they will not feel bitter about that, they should talk to the trade union leaders concerned. They must know that it is precisely among white-collar workers that there has been a growth in trade unionism in the past 10 years. For example, professional engineers and other groups are now joining legitimate trade unions. Doctors now have the Medical Practitioners Union, and others have now combined with A.S.T.M.S. It could well be that the Clause will block these channels for such organisations. Hon. Members opposite will say that both bodies can apply to be sole bargaining agents. I understand that very well, but the point is that one is a legitimate trade union organisation concerned with wages and conditions and the other has a number of different functions, one of which is the acceptance of members' professional qualifications and so on, which is not entirely the same thing.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

The trade union movement has recently had a conference on the Bill, where white-collar workers indicated, through the unions represented there, that after the Bill became law they wanted to register under it. Does the hon. Gentlemen agree with their attitude and agree that they obviously accept the Bill as it is, including special registration?

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman has a genius for introducing red herrings, and trying to get the headlines in his local newspaper on issues that are not being discussed. We are not discussing the Croydon debate. The hon. Gentleman will be able to pursue that matter on Third Reading, when I am certain that a number of comments will be made by Conservative Members about the Croydon decision. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends think that that decision was a great victory for the Government, they want to read the small print of the seven resolutions that were passed. It was the very opposite of a victory for the Government. For the first time for a long period we face the position of the trade union movement as a whole not being prepared to co-operate with the Government. Even if some of the unions should register, in other ways they are not prepared to co-operate with the Government. That is not any great advance, as far as I can see.

I reiterate that certain organisations have dual functions, and perhaps a number of functions, because they are chartered under a Royal Charter or are companies. But a trade union does not have the same rights.

If certain professional bodies wish to continue to be professional bodies, to have professional standards, or to be limited companies concerned with those aspects of their existence, they should stick to that, and drop the trade union side and allow the legitimate trade unions to get on with the job of organising professional workers and dealing with their problems on the basis of proper trade union organisation.

Mr. Palmer

Which in some cases they have been doing for 50 years.

Mr. Heffer

That is absolutely true. There are two or three unions connected with the nursing profession, including C.O.H.S.E. and N.U.P.E.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

The Royal College has been doing it for many years.

Mr. Heffer

Of course, but other proper, legitimate unions begin to develop amongst professional and white-collar workers when the professional organisations are failing them. That is why such organisations have a growth basis.

The Solicitor-General

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and the British Medical Association should not continue to be entitled to organise or represent their members in collective bargaining, and that the field should be left entirely to other unions, which he describes as legitimate trade unions? If it is the Opposition's attitude that bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and so on should be excluded from collective bargaining and industrial relations, will the hon. Gentleman please be clear about it?

Mr. Heffer

The hon. and learned Gentleman has deliberately tried to twist what I am saying, as so often happens. I am saying that they should not be in a position of having special privileges. For example, if the Royal College of Nursing wishes to continue legitimately to have nurses under its control, as it were, to negotiate on their behalf, it should accept the role as a trade union and do it as a trade union. It should not have a privilege above other organisations also concerned with the organisation of those workers and dealing with their negotiations. I am not saying any more than that.

The hon. Member for Harrow, West suggested that we should not spend a whole day on the three Clauses. I know that he was trying to suggest that the Opposition were making unnecessary

speeches, lengthening them, and so on. That is not the position at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We should have liked a serious examination of each Clause, and to examine seriously and discuss and vote upon all our Amendments and the Government Amendments. We have not had that opportunity, because we have been labouring all the way through under a guillotine Motion. Its very existence has made it extremely difficult for us to have serious discussions on the parts of the Bill we feel to be of the utmost importance. It has been difficult all the way through to know exactly how to deal with the Bill, to get the best out of each situation and have at least some discussion on fundamental parts. We shall never be able to achieve that, and whole sections will have gone through without any proper examination. That is an absolute disgrace. The full responsibility lies on the Government.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)

Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House what Bill under his Government or any other has had a longer time in Committee and on Report than this?

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is one of the most fundamental and important Bills we have had, affecting the working life of every worker. Therefore, it is clear that it should have been properly examined, particularly the part establishing the courts. It has not been examined, and unfortunately cannot be examined.

As the case presented for the Clause has not answered the four important questions put by my hon. Friend, we cannot give it a Second Reading.

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

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 237.

Division No. 262.] AYES [5.55 p.m.
Adley, Robert Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Braine, Bernard
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Benyon, W. Bray, Ronald
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Berry, Hn. Anthony Brinton, Sir Tatton
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Biffen, John Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Biggs-Davison, John Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Atkins, Humphrey Blaker, Peter Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Bryan, Paul
Balniel, Lord Body, Richard Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)
Batsford, Brian Boscawen, Robert Buck, Antony
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bossom, Sir Clive Bullus, Sir Eric
Bell, Ronald Bowden, Andrew Burden, F. A.
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay) Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn) Holt, Miss Mary Pink, R. Bonner
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hordern, Peter Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cary, Sir Robert Hornby, Richard Price, David (Eastleigh)
Chapman, Sydney Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Proudfoot, Wilfred
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pym, Rt. Hn, Francis
Clark, William (Surney, E.) Howell, David (Guildford) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Raison, Timothy
Clegg, Walter Hunt, John Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Cockeram, Eric Hutchison, Michael Clark Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Cooke, Robert Iremonger, T. L. Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Coombs, Derek James, David Rees, Peter (Dover)
Cooper, A. E. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Cordle, John Jesset, Toby Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Costain, A. P. Jopling, Michael Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Critchley, Julian Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Crouch, David Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rodgiers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kershaw, Anthony Rost, Peter
d'Avigdor-GoIdsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Royle, Anthony
Dean, Paul King, Tom (Bridgwater) Russell, Sir Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Kinsey, J. R. St. John-Stevas, Norman,
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kirk, Peter Scott, Nicholas
Dixon, Piers Kitson, Timothy Scott-Hopkins, James
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Knight, Mrs. Jill Sharples, Richard
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Knox, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Lambton, Antony Shelton, William (Clapham)
Dykes, Hugh Lane, David Simeons, Charles
Eden, Sir John Langford-Holt, Sir John Sinclair, Sir George
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Skeet, T. H. H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Le Merchant, Spencer Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Soref, Harold
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Speed, Keith
Farr, John Longden, Gilbert Spence, John
Fell, Anthony Loveridge, John Sproat, Iain
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy MacArthur, Ian Stainton, Keith
Fidler, Michael McCrindle, R. A. Stanbrook, Ivor
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) McLaren, Martin Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Michael Stokes, John
Foster, Sir John McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Fowler, Norman Maddan, Martin Sutcliffe, John
Fox, Marcus Madel, David Tapsell, Peter
Fry, Peter Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Marten, Neil Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Gardner, Edward Mather, Carol Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Gibson-Watt, David Maude, Angus Tebbit, Norman
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Temple, John M.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mawby, Ray Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Glyn, Dr. Alan Meyer, Sir Anthony Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Mills, Peter (Torrington) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Goodhart, Philip Miscampbell, Norman Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Goodhew, Victor Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Tilney, John
Gorst, John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gower, Raymond Moate, Roger Trew, Peter
Gray, Hamish Money, Ernie Tugendhat, Christopher
Green, Alan Monks, Mrs. Connie Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Grieve, Percy Monro, Hector van Straubenzee, W. R.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Montgomery, Fergus Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. More, Jasper Vickers, Dame Joan
Grylls, Michael Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Waddington, David
Gummer, Selwyn Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Wall, Patrick
Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Walters, Dennis
Hall, John (Wycombe) Mudd, David Ward, Dame Irene
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Murton, Oscar Warren, Kenneth
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Weatherill, Bernard
Hannam, John (Exeter) Neave, Atrey Wells, John (Maidstone)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Nicholls, Sir Harmar White, Roger (Gravesend)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Normanton, Tom Wiggin, Jerry
Havers, Michael Nott, John Wilkinson, John
Hawkins, Paul Onslow, Cranky Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hay, John Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hayhoe, Barney Osborn, John Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Woodnutt, Mark
Hicks, Robert Page, Graham (Crosby) Worsley, Marcus
Higgins, Terence L. Page, John (Harrow, W.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Hiley, Joseph Pardoe, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Percival, Ian Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Holland, Philip Pike, Miss Mervyn Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Abse, Leo Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Murray, Ronald King
Allen, Scholefield Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Ogden, Eric
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Hamling, William O'Halloran, Michael
Armstrong, Ernest Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) O'Malley, Brian
Ashton, Joe Hardy, Peter Orbach, Maurice
Atkinson, Norman Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orme, Stanley
Bagier, Gordon A. T, Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Oswald, Thomas
Barnes, Michael Hattersley, Roy Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beaney, Alan Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Palmer, Arthur
Bennet, James (Glasgow, Bridgton) Heffer, Eric S. Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bidwell, Sydney Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pavitt, Laurie
Bishop, E. S. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Huckfield, Leslie Pendry, Tom
Booth, Albert Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, Norman
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hughes, Mark (Durham) Perry, Ernest G.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Prescott, John
Buchan, Norman Hunter, Adam Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill) Probert, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Janner, Greville Rankin, John
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cant, R. B. dager, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Carmichael, Neil Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) John, Brynmor Richard, Ivor
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Roper, John
Conlan, Bernard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Rose, Paul B.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kaufman, Gerald Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cox, Thomas, (Wandsworth, C.) Kelley, Richard Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crawshaw, Richard Kerr, Russell Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cronin, John Kinnock, Neil Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lambie, David Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.) Lamond, James Sillars, James
Dalyell, Tam Latham, Arthur Silverman, Julius
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lawson, George Skinner, Dennis
Davidson, Arthur Leadbitter, Ted Small, William
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Leonard, Dick Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lestor, Miss Joan Spriggs, Leslie
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Stallard, A. W.
Deakins, Eric Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lipton, Marcus Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dempsey, James Lomas, Kenneth Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Doig, Peter Loughlin, Charles Strang, Gavin
Dormand, J. D. Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Swain, Thomas
Driberg, Tom McBride, Neil Taverne, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P. McCartney, Hugh Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Dunn, James A. McElhone, Frank Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Eadie, Alex McGuire, Michael Tinn, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackenzie, Gregor Tomney Frank
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackie, John Torney, Tom
Ellis, Tom Mackintosh, John P. Tuck, Raphael
English, Michael Maclennan, Robert Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred McNamara, J. Kevin Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. MacPherson, Malcolm Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wallace, George
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Marks, Kenneth Watkins, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marquand, David Weitzman, David
Foley, Maurice Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Wellbeloved, James
Foot, Michael Meacher, Michael White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Forrester, John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Whitehead, Phillip
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mendelson, John Whitlock, William
Freeson, Reginald Millan, Bruce Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Garrett, W. E, Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Gilbert, Dr. John Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Ginsburg, David Molloy, William Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Golding, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wilson, William, (Coventry, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Gourlay, Harry Morris, Charles, R. (Openshaw) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant, George (Morpeth) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Moyle, Roland Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Clause accordingly read a Second time.
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

I beg to move Amendment No. (lllll) to the proposed Clause, in line 9, leave out 'whether'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With this we can also discuss Amendment No. (mmmmm), in line 9, leave out 'or after', also standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and the names of her hon. Friends.

Mr. Fraser

Earlier, the Solicitor-General said that the special register was designed to suit particular organisations which were now registered under the Companies Act and which had Royal Charters. I still do not think that the Government have given any satisfactory explanation to the House as to why there should be a distinction between professional organisations and trade unions as generally understood by most of society. It leaves us with a rather strange situation. No body is going to get on the special register unless already registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1948, or unless it subsequently obtains a Royal Charter. Royal Charters are fairly rare and it seems extraordinary that the Government should create this esoteric circle of special organisations which have what I regard as class distinction from trade unions and other organisations of workers.

Why is this done? The Government have already robbed trade unions which do not register of advantages and facilities which they possess at the moment. They have perpetuated the provision of the Companies Act and of the Trades Union Act, 1871, that a trade union may not register as a company. They have given no explanation why that should be perpetuated. The situation has its roots in the 19th century but if it is to be re-enacted and reinforced by this Bill, we deserve an explanation.

One can take it as a matter of course that trade unions are excluded from obtaining Royal Charters. Therefore, we have the situation where a body can only get on the special register if it is an organisation created after the Bill has been passed or it gets a Royal Charter. This leaves a tremendous gap. By definition, organisations which come into existence after the Bill becomes law and whose principle and only objective is not the organisation or relations between workers and employers—for instance, if they were formed after the Bill becomes law, or are organisations of screen writers, television writers, people who do orchestral arranging for films, and so on, whose members may be self-employed but which still have to regulate relations between workers and employers—cannot get on the special register unless they get a Royal Charter, and it is unlikely that many of them will. Neither can they register as trade unions, because the definition excludes them. There is, therefore, a gap.

We do not say that we should amend the provisions of the special register, but that there should be a broad enough definition of "organisation of workers" to embrace all people whose objective is to regulate terms and conditions of employment in the broadest sense. This would include workers by definition in the Bill as well as employees. The definition of a worker is rather wider than the definition of an employee. First, there is a gap for organisations which come into existence after the passing of the Bill. The Government propose this escape hatch, which is the possible granting of a Royal Charter or letters patent to an organisation after the passing of the Bill. This is absolutely disgraceful.

The grant of a Royal Charter is not controlled by Parliament except by way of a censure Motion and having a debate in the House. There are no statutory provisions governing in detail the grant of a charter. It is a question of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative which is exercised on the advice of the Government. The Government are reserving to themselves a wider discretion about who should and who should not get a charter and are hiding behind the Royal Prerogative in the exercise of their discretion.

Why would the Government be willing to grant a Royal Charter to a body like the Royal College of Nursing and wish to rob the Trades Union Congress of the rights and privileges which it now exercises? Because its constituent members will not all be registered as trade unions, the Trades Union Congress cannot exist as a trade union. But surely the T.U.C. does as much for the public good—and that is one of the conditions in the granting of a Royal Charter—and exercises as much interest in the future of this country by its contributions to economic and social thinking as other organisations which will be able to get a Royal Charter. Why the class distinction?

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in the past the T.U.C. could have been accurately described as a trade union? There is nothing in its history or constitution which is remotely like anything which exists in the history or constitution of an individual trade union. It has been something fundamentally different. It has been bigger and more variegated in its constitutional powers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should want to make it a mere trade union.

Mr. Fraser

I think I am right in saying that the T.U.C. is a trade union.

Mr. Gower

Not in that sense.

Mr. Fraser

I believe that it is registered under the 1871 Act and therefore I hope that the House will excuse me for describing it as a trade union. It could be a trade union by definition under the Bill, because "trade union" includes not only the lower-tier organisation where the members are workers, but the higher-tier organisation where there are federations of trade unions. There is a distinction drawn between certain professional bodies which get their Royal Charters by the exercise of discretion and the Royal Prerogative and a denial of status to other organisations like the T.U.C. which have as much part to play in the public good and have as long and respectable histories as other organisations. We are against the Government's proposal for that reason and also because it involves the exercise of discretion.

Why do the Government wish to preserve the right to grant privileges and facilities, and burdens, under the Bill and the right to register as a trade union in a different way? The answer lies in something said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), namely, that there is an element of the works canteen philosophy about this provision: the white-collar workers sit at one end of the table and the blue-collar workers sit at the other; the professional organisations have one status and the workers have another.

The thinking behind this shakes the very roots of the Conservative Party. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite fear the extension of trade unionism. They pay lip service to trade unionism and say that they want it to be encouraged and yet they put in the Bill a provision to the effect that everybody has the right not to belong to a trade union. They know the reality of recruitment and that while it may not affect existing and well-established trade unions it could prevent the extension of trade unions. That is the reason for the provisions of Clause 5. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are afraid of the spread of trade unionism.

6.15 p.m.

The thing which frightens the Conservative capitalist view of society is that even highly paid people like those who work in the banks and the teaching profession and those in the higher echelons of society have suddenly realised that they are identified not with the shareholders but with a different kind of interest. When people at the top of every large public company or profession realise that they are identified more with the workers than with the owners of industry and the people who own the share capital we can have a peaceful revolution. When that happens people will be able to take over and run society for themselves.

That is what right hon. and hon. Members opposite are afraid of. That is why they wish to preserve the respectability of the Royal Charter and to continue the mythology that certain people in society—and this can be seen among nursing sisters and matrons—will identify themselves more with institutions and the establishment. This is illustrated by the condemnation that we have seen on television and elsewhere of nurses carrying banners asking for more pay. We know the mentality which favours the Conservative Party. It wants to preserve that mentality and that is why it wants to preserve the discretion to grant Royal Charters to some organisations.

Mr. R. Carr

Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that we might also wish to preserve the rights and wishes of the majority of nurses, for example?

Mr. Fraser

I recognised that in the earlier part of my speech. There is no reason why the Bill should not be so drafted that the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and trade unions are treated in exactly the same way. The aim of the Opposition is to have a unified approach. The Government's aim is to divide, because by dividing they hope to continue to rule. They will fail.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The new Clause and the intention behind it highlight the divisive nature of the Government.

The Conservative Party and the Secretary of State talk about wanting to remove class barriers. But this Clause is a class Clause. It divides certain people in the professional classes from the working class. The T.U.C. and the trade unions are moving the other way. They are encouraging white collar workers to come under the umbrella of the T.U.C. Teachers and members of N.A.L.G.O. have broadened the base of trade unionism. It is this broadening, of the base which attacks the class structure, but the Government are trying to solidify that structure.

The Government are trying to create two classes. One is meant to be the impeccable class—the doctors, certain sections of the nursing profession and certain chartered organisations which have the benefit of the Royal Charter. This is a class issue. The new Clause shows up the hypocrisy of registration. If registration was meant to be the helpful factor which the Government say it is, and if it is meant to assist the trade union movement, why is it necessary to have special registration for special people? Why must we maintain these divisions? As my hon. Friend has said, people are increasingly joining the trade union movement, many of them professional people.

In an area where I used to work near my constituency there was a merger between the Thorn Electrical Company and the Record Electric Company in the Broadheath/Altrincham area of Cheshire. There were wholesale redundancies, and one of the first people to go was the previous managing director—he was asked to go within an hour. This is the atmosphere in industry today; there is no security. That is why increasingly in the banking profession and in other middle echelons of industry people are coming into the trade union movement, not into company unions but into independent organisations like Mr. Clive Jenkins's union.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are laying the foundations for the demarcation disputes of the latter half of this century by the introduction of this divisive Measure?

Mr. Orme

Absolutely, and this is what many of us who have spent a lifetime in industry are trying to get rid of. One of the main criticisms of British society today is the class divisions which still exist. We want to get rid of them, but the Minister is emphasising and underwriting them by having a special register.

Mr. R. Carr

The hon. Gentleman is saying that we should prevent bodies like the Royal College of Nursing from continuing with activities which they engage in today. All the new Clause is doing is enabling them to continue in the future to do what they are doing today. We are not preventing the unionisation of nurses.

Mr. Orme

No, and we welcome it. We also welcome the change of attitude within the nursing profession which we saw when the nurses were pressing their wage claim. I hope to see the nursing profession affiliated to the T.U.C.—and the medical profession. I argue that chartered organisations should also be affiliated to the T.U.C. To have a special register only serves to highlight the impossibility of the Bill and the contradictions inherent within it.

I belong to a craft union which has been in existence for 130 or 140 years. Craftsmen feel that they are equally as entitled to distinction as organisations incorporated by charter, or anybody else. I do not see the need for this division, which will only create a heirarchy. The Amendment has highlighted the idiotic situation we are being placed in.

The Solicitor-General

The Amendment and the way it has been supported, particularly by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), cause one distress and anguish that something of this kind should be regarded as part of a class conspiracy. That is so remote from the truth and so absurd that, had it not been uttered by the hon. Member, one would scarcely have imagined it possible. The object of the exercise is entirely the opposite of what he suggests.

I will deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). After the passing of the Bill there will be no gate in the way of new organisations of workers getting on to the register. A new organisation will be able to find its way on to the register through the ordinary provisions, including a new trade union of workers as well as a trade union of employees. This would include organisations such as the writers he was speaking about, because the definition of "worker" is wide enough for that. There will be no special gateway for chartered bodies after the passing of the Bill. For a body to come on to the special register it must be engaged in the organising of workers, it must be independent and it must comply with the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3. There is no special privileged way through. These organisations will have to measure up to exactly the same standards.

The hon. Member for Salford, West asks why this is necessary. It is necessary to prevent the division of the collective bargaining pattern and to prevent the exclusion of certain organisations which are now active in the field from the role of collective bargaining. If we did not have these special provisions we should be excluding such bodies as the R.C.N. as a collective bargaining agency from the field where the new recognition provisions and so on will apply. It is to maintain the breadth of that field and to ensure that we are not dividing the sheep from the goats that these provisions are introduced.

Mr. Orme

But why cannot these organisations go on the other register—or is it that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to subject these organisations to the rigours he will subject the rest of the trade unions to?

The Solicitor-General

Indeed, I want to subject them to exactly the same rigours. That is why I explained a moment ago and also in the last debate that the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 will apply in exactly the same way as they do to any other organisation. The trade unions already registered under the 1871 Act will not be exposed to rigours different from the ones to which these organisations will be exposed. There will be automatic transfer to the provisional register and later to the final register. We want to apply the same pattern for well-established bargaining bodies such as the ones we have been talking about. We do not want these organisations to suffer an upheaval any more than other trade unions. Of course, they will have to comply with Clause 61, their rules will have to be in order and they will have to comply with Schedule 3, but they will not have to transform their entire organisation, tear up their charters and abandon their long-standing method of organisation provided they comply with all the other provisions and qualify as a collective bargaining organisation.

The mere fact that an organisation is a chartered organisation gives it no special immunity. It exempts it from none of the obligations under the Bill. The concept of a charter is not confined to professional organisations. The existence of a charter qualifying under these provisions does not give the Registrar, 'the Crown or anyone else any greater discretion than in respect of a registered trade union, because the provisions of Clause 61 and Schedule 3 and all the other provisions, apart from the accountancy ones which are separately provided for, will still have to be complied with by the chartered organisation.

Mr. John Fraser

If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows the Government's strategy through, under Clause 63 a federation of workers' organisations cannot be registered unless all its constituent organisations are also registered trade unions. Does he not realise that, if that strategy were followed through, no organisation on the special register could become affiliated to the T.U.C. if it registered, because that would destroy the conditions of its registration?

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I will check that and look at it a little further. I do not think that that is right. But I will see how those two provisions inter-operate.

In the context of the matter which we are debating, I emphasise that the possession of the charter does not give any kind of distinction. The same kinds of obligation will have to be complied with.

Several hon. Members opposite have asserted that we are creating and perpetuating two kinds or classes of organisation. I answer that by saying that there are already in existence a number of professional organisations which are either registered or are eligible for registration as an ordinary trade union, bodies such as the Regional Hospitals' Consultants and Specialists Association, the Association of University Teachers, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, and a number of others of that kind, which are not registered as companies, are not in possession of Royal Charters, and would, therefore, have to register on the ordinary register as trade unions.

That points to the absurdity of the argument that we are separating on some class basis one kind of organisation from another. The only object of these provisions is to ensure that we do not exclude from the general provisions of the Bill existing organisations of the kind that we have been discussing. One does not want to exclude the possibility of other organisations, perhaps now registered as trade unions, acquiring a chartered status and moving over to the register. One can think of many organisations which might choose to apply for chartered status. There is nothing wrong in that. If they are representing their members for collective bargaining, they have every right to be included in this register in this way.

I emphasise as plainly as I can that the suggestion that this inclusion is a divisive exercise is to pursue the fanciful to the extreme. The intention is to ensure that the field is unified and open to all those organisations which are now at work in it and which would continue, if they wished, to be so, and that is all.

Mrs. Castle

The Government are playing this important innovation in the Bill in a very downbeat way. I must tell the Solicitor-General, who, as usual, is not listening to the Opposition Front Bench wind-up speech, that that is the moment when we suspect the Government's motives most. When he starts giving voice to his moral anguish about our sinister-mindedness, that is the moment when I reach for my bullet-proof vest. It is incumbent on the Government to prove that the setting up of this special and separate register is unavoidable. Until they do that, they cannot complain if we believe that there is more behind this move than the very innocent arguments which the Solicitor-General has just given us.

Our complaint is that we have not been given any reasons why this special register is not just convenient but unavoidable. Indeed, the Solicitor-General used the word earlier that it would be "inconvenient" to ask these bodies to reconstitute themselves so as to bring them under the same law as everybody else.

In an issue of this importance, we have no right to talk about inconvenience. We are left with the view that, at the very best, the Government are trying to save from inconvenience special groups for which they have a soft spot, and at worst, that they are giving them privileges.

When I think not of the inconvenience that will be put on the trade union movement but of the legal restrictions and penalties, for the Government to use the inconvenience argument as the justification for a special register proves what my hon. Friends have been saying about the Government's no doubt subconscious class reactions in industrial relations.

In subsection (2) of new Clause 8 we are told that the special register is to be open to only two groups. First, it is to be open to companies registered under the Companies Act before the passing of the Bill. That is where we get the inconvience argument. For the future, we are told that no more limited companies ought to be allowed to register under this special register. Second, we are told that the other group which can register on the special register is an organisation incorporated under charter …before or after the passing of this Act. In putting down the Amendments, we have asked, "Why the distinction?" We have not had a satisfactory reply. We believe that this distinction, this subsection, makes an already phoney and dubious position worse.

Let us first take the argument of the Government about the need of limited companies to have a special register. We are told that the innocent, only reason for putting them on a special register is that a limited company cannot be registered as a trade union. It is true that that applied under the 1871 Act. It applies now under that Act. But why do the Government deliberately go out of their way to perpetuate it, in Clause 141, when the Government's whole aim is to enable limited companies like the B.M.A. to act like trade unions with impunity? If a trade union cannot and ought not to be allowed by law to be a limited company, why allow a limited company to be a trade union? It is a two-way argument. That is what we are complaining about. Why should the B.M.A. be allowed to have its cake and eat it? If it wants to be registered as a trade union under the Bill, why should it not reconstitute itself as a body other than a company?

In renewing the provisions of the 1871 Act, in Clause 141 the Government say that they believe that trade unions should not be limited companies. Therefore, by definition, limited companies should not be trade unions. Why, then, are we setting up a special register to enable them to be trade unions called under a different name? There is no logic in it.

Either the B.M.A. should not be allowed to operate both as a limited company and as a trade union called under another name, thanks to the special register, or, if that is too inconvenient, as the hon. and learned Gentleman put it, it should be asked to reconstitute itself. Why give us Clause 141? Why not allow a trade union to be a company limited by guarantee, because that is what the B.M.A. is?

We have been given no reason. It is just assumed that somehow a device for enabling a body which is not supposed to be a trade union to act as one is right. Why? We have not begun to have an answer. It is not fanciful to say to the Government that if they want to make it possible for some people to act as both, they should allow a trade union to act as a company limited by guarantee. The Government are abandoning a long tradition of not having the incorporation of trade unions. I do not think that the case for incorporating trade unions is established, but I do not think that the case for the special register is established.

All that we are asking for is equality of treatment. It is one of the curses of our industrial relations system today that too many people such as right hon. and hon. Members opposite instinctively approach certain sections of our community with bias and believe that those sections must put up with anything that the Government put on the Statute Book, however inconvenient it is and however disastrous it is to those sections in their organised life. But for a body like the B.M.A. there must be some device to enable it to continue without inconvenience any of the activities that it wants to pursue.

The Government are giving a total carte blanche for organisations set up by charter. The Government go out of their way to ensure that such organisations will qualify for the special register, not only if they exist at present, but when they come to exist in the future. There is not even the limitation which is put upon the future limited company.

The case for special treatment of chartered bodies has not been proved. No serious attempt has been made to prove it. Is it true that the charters of various bodies prohibit them from having negotiations among their objects? Perhaps their charters prohibit them from having negotiations about terms and conditions as their principal object; we can understand that. If that is the difficulty, let us, in the pursuit of true equality, amend Clause 57 and say that an organisation of workers shall not have to have this as one of its principal objects.

Mr. Gower

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that in some cases the nature of these bodies has been reflected by the emergence of trade unions in the same field? That the B.M.A. is not primarily a trade union in the sense that we have always understood has been emphasised by the fact that bodies such as the Medical Practitioners' Union and a Socialist medical body have emerged which are more exactly trade unions. Does not this suggest some difference in the nature of these bodies from the narrow or more orthodox sense of trade union as we have always understood it?

Mrs. Castle

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because he has very beautifully underlined our case. This is just what we fear; namely, that it is the emergence in the negotiating field of strong rivals in the form of genuine trade unions that is now making the B.M.A. very anxious to qualify as a trade union without adapting itself in any way to fit the normal register under the Bill.

Mr. Orme

Does my right hon. Friend agree, after what we saw last summer, that one would not readily deny that one of the principal objects of the B.M.A. was to fight for trade union rights, wages and conditions?

6.45 p.m.

Mrs. Castle

Certainly. There is a later Amendment which will enable us to illustrate my hon. Friend's point with some vividness. But the B.M.A. is apparently to go on the special register as a limited company, not as a chartered body.

If it is incompatible with their charters for these bodies to have as their principal object the securing of better terms and conditions for their members and bargaining, but we know that that is an activity that they engage in, we can equalise the situation and remove the necessity for a special register by amending Clause 57 so that it would read and is an organisation whose objects include the regulation of relations between workers and not "whose principal objects include". No serious answer has been advanced against this.

The Solicitor-General is once again engaged in happy private conversation while we on this side talk to ourselves. But we have got used to it. We know that the Report stage is largely irrelevant to hon. Members opposite, but we pay the Solicitor-General the courtesy of listening to him carefully.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that if we took "principal" out of Clause 57, it would widen the definition of an organisation too much and large numbers of bodies could qualify for registration under the Bill. Most bodies that I know are trying to find ways of not registering. I cannot see organisations that are not genuinely concerned with the regulation of relation between workers running to register under an Act in accordance with which they can be mulcted for damages of up to £100,000. It is a ridiculous argument. Nobody will register and put themselves within the confines of this tight legal framework unless it is by definition earnestly concerned with the regulation of relations between workers and cannot avoid registering to discharge its functions properly.

In moving the Clause, the Solicitor-General said that there were bodies whose charters prohibited them from acting as trade unions and they had to be helped by being put on the special register. If their charters were given to them on the understanding that they did not behave as trade unions, why are the Government seeking to legalise what is contrary to the charters of these bodies?

The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "But there are chartered bodies which want to behave like trade unions although they are not supposed to. We will stop everybody else from doing something they are not supposed to do, under dire penalties, but we will not stop chartered bodies. Although their charters prohibit them from acting in a certain way, we will make it possible for them both to have their charters and to behave like trade unions, because we will set up a special register and put them on it and tell them. 'You are not registered trade unions'." It is a nice little bit of face-saving to enable the purposes of charters to be circumvented.

We believe that the carte blanche provision for the future which is contained in subsection (2) is wrong. Either the charters of these bodies enable them and entitle them to behave like trade unions, in which case they should be registered under the Bill generally like every other trade union, or their charters do not so entitle them, in which case they had better face the facts and stop trying to behave like trade unions.

Mr. R. Carr

Did the right hon. Lady take that view about the Royal College of Nursing when she was in office? Did she try to stop the College from trying to do what it is trying to do at the moment?

Mrs. Castle

The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride away on that one. It was he who introduced the absurd legal web that he is trying to spin round every organisation. This problem arose only when he made this absurd attempt to put everybody into a legal straitjacket.

Mr. R. Carr

The charter of the Royal College of Nursing was the same in the days of the right hon. Lady as it is today, and so if the College is acting contrary to its charter today it was also acting contrary to its charter in her day.

Mrs. Castle

But I never said that in order to enable it to negotiate it had to register. I never said that in order to enable it to conduct its normal bargaining it had to observe this rule and that Clause. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has led the Royal College of Nursing into this mess, and not me. It will not do for him now to try—as lie always tries—to ride away in the most demagogic way of almost any Minister by saying, "Look at the wicked Opposition! They are trying to stop the Royal College of Nursing from negotiating." We are not doing anything of the kind. We are saying that there is a simple way out of this dilemma, which is to stop this compulsory registration.

Because the Government have created these difficulties by setting up compulsory registration under the terms and conditions laid down in the Bill the Royal College of Nursing and everybody else must realise that their job is to resist the Bill and not to say, "We are not going to change our functions. You have to find a way, Mr. Secretary of State, to help us to have the best of both worlds in order that you can carry forward successfully a Bill that gives the ordinary trade union the worst of all worlds." That is the distinction, and that is why we say that there is a difference of treatment here that has not been justified.

We want to leave these bodies free to negotiate if they want to, but we say that if they are to be free the trade union movement must also be free, on the same terms. The Government must legislate alike, or not legislate at all. That is why we shall vote on the Amendment.

Mr. Gower

It is remarkable how the Opposition seem to have got hold of a very small doubt and blown it up into a tremendous fear. They first suggested that this special register was a device to prevent these bodies coming within the scope of the Bill, but when my right hon. Friend explained that its purpose was just the opposite—namely, to bring them within the scope of the Bill—they criticised him on entirely different grounds.

I should have thought that there were historical reasons why these bodies have tended to be somewhat different in character from other bodies which operate solely as trade unions. There is nothing wrong in that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) is speaking as though there was something reprehensible in the fact that these bodies are different in type and character. It may be that many of the objectives that they have accumulated over the years are analogous to those of trade unions, but it is fairly obvious that others are quite different in kind and type.

These are professional bodies, of a wider character—not a better or superior character, but a different character. There is nothing wrong with that. I would have hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would see some virtue in having variety in our industrial and economic life. These bodies have usually made a wonderful contribution to that life, in their own terms. For the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to suggest that they are somehow a means of creating two nations is utter tommyrot. State registered nurses and members of the Royal College of Nursing come from all kinds of homes.

We are not talking about two nations—one of workers and one of privileged people. [Interruption.] That is what the hon. Member for Salford, West says. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Burnley was here at the time, but the hon. Member for Salford, West spoke as if, by providing for the continued existence of the Royal College of Nursing, the B.M.A. and such bodies, we were trying to perpetuate some class division. I have never heard anything more fatuous or ridiculous.

These are bodies of a slightly different character, and they take justifiable pride in that character. They do not contend that they are better than trade unions but they believe that they have slightly different functions, which include the function of negotiation. It is right that such bodies should be incorporated in this way. I see no reason for the ridiculous fears expressed by hon. Members opposite.

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

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 281.

Division No. 263.] AYES [6.55 p.m.
Abse, Leo Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Molloy, William
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gourlay, Harry Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Allen, Scholefield Grant, George (Morpeth) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Armstrong, Ernest Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ashley, Jack Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ashton, Joe Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Murray, R. K.
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Ogden, Eric
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hamling, William O'Halloran, Michael
Barnes, Michael Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) O'Malley, Brian
Beaney, Alan Hardy, Peter Orbach, Maurice
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orme, Stanley
Bidwell, Sydney Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Oswald, Thomas
Bishop, E. S, Hattersley, Roy Palmer, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Parker, John (Dagenham)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Heffer, Eric S. Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Booth, Albert Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pavitt, Laurie
Bottomley, Rt, Hn. Arthur Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Rt. Hn. cledwyn (Anglesey) Pendry, Tom
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury Hughes, Mark (Durham) Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Perry, Ernest G.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hunter, Adam Prescott, John
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cant, R. B. Janner, Greville Probert, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rankin, John
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H' b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara John, Brynmor Rhodes, Geoffrey
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Richard, Ivor
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cohen, Stanley Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Roper, John
Crawshaw, Richard Kaufman, Gerald
Cronin, John Kelley, Richard Rose, Paul B.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Kerr, Russell Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Kinnock, Neil Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dalyefl, Tam Lambie, David Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Darling, Rt Hn. George Lamond, James Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N. E.)
Davidson, Arthur Latham, Arthur Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lawson, George Sillars, James
Davies, G. Elfred (Rhondda, E.) Leadbitter, Ted Silverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Skinner, Dennis
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil) Leonard, Dick Small, William
Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lestor, Miss Joan Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Deakins, Eric Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Spearing, Nigel
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Spriggs, Leslie
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stallard, A. W.
Dempsey, James Lipton, Marcus Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Dormand, J. D. Loughlin, Charles Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lyon, Alexander, W. (York) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Strang, Gavin
Driberg, Tom Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Duffy, A. E. P. McBride, Neil Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunnett, Jack McCartney, Hugh Swain, Thomas
Eadie, Alex McElhone, Frank Taverne, Dick
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McGuire, Michael Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, w.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackenzie, Gregor Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ellis, Tom Mackie, John Thomson Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
English, Michael Mackintosh, John P. Tinn, James
Evans, Fred Maclennan, Robert Tomney, Frank
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. McNamara, J. Kevin Torney, Thomas
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) MacPherson, Malcolm Tuck, Raphael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin
Foley, Maurice Marks, Kenneth Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foot, Michael Marquand, David Wallace, George
Forrester, John Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Watkins, David
Fraser, John (Norwood) Meacher, Michael Weitzman, David
Freeson, Reginald Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wellbeloved, James
Garrett, W. E. Mendelson, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gilbert, Dr. John Millan, Bruce White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Ginsburg, David Miller, Dr. M. 8. Whitehead, Phillip
Golding, John Milne, Edward (Blyth) Whitlock, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) Mr. Alan Fitch and
Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) Mr. Joseph Harper.
Adley, Robert Fookes, Miss Janet Longden, Gilbert
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fortescue, Tim Loveridge, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Foster, Sir John MacArthur, Ian
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Fowler, Norman McCrindle, R. A.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Fox, Marcus McLaren, Martin
Astor, John Fry, Peter Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Atkins, Humphrey Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Awdry, Daniel Gardner, Edward McNair-Wilson, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Gibson-Watt, David McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Balniel, Lord Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Maddan, Martin
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Madel, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Glyn, Dr. Alan Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Belt, Ronald Godber, Rt. Hn, J. B. Marten, Neil
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Goodhart, Philip Mather, Carol
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Goodhew, victor Maude, Angus
Benyon, W. Gorst, John Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gower, Raymond Mawby, Ray
Biffen, John Gray, Hamish Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biggs-Davison, John Green, Alan Meyer, Sir Anthony
Blaker, Peter Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Miscampbell, Norman
Body, Richard Grylls, Michael Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Boscawen, Robert Gummer, Selwyn Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bossom, Sir Clive Gurden, Harold Moate, Roger
Bowden, Andrew Hall, John (Wycombe) Money, Ernie
Boyd-Carpcnter, Rt. Hn. John Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monks, Mrs. Connie
Braine, Bernard Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monro, Hector
Bray, Ronald Hannam, John (Exeter) Montgomery, Fergus
Brew is, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hastings, Stephen Mudd, David
Bryan, Paul Havers, Michael Murton, Oscar
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Hawkins, Paul Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Buck, Antony Hay, John Neave, Alrey
Bullus, Sir Eric Hayhoe, Barney Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Burden, F. A. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hicks, Robert Normanton, Tom
Carlisle, Mark Higgins, Terence L. Nott, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hiley, Joseph Onslow, Cranley
Chapman, Sydney Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Osborn, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Holland, Philip Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Holt, Miss Mary Page, Graham (Crosby)
Clegg, Walter Hordern, Peter Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Cockeram, Eric Hornby, Richard Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Cooke, Robert Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Percival, Ian
Coombs, Derek Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cooper, A. E. Howell, David (Guildford) Pink, R. Bonner
Cordle, John Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hunt, John Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cormack, Patrick Hutchison, Michael Clark Proudfoot, Wilfred
Costain, A. P, Iremonger, T. L. Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Critchley, Julian James, David Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crouch, David Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Raison, Timothy
Crowder, F. P. Jessel, Toby Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj. -Gen. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Dean, Paul Jopling, Michael Rees, Peter (Dover)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Rees-Davies, W. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kaberry, Sir Donald Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dixon, Piers Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dodos-Parker, Douglas Kershaw, Anthony Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Kimball, Marcus Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Dykes, Hugh King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Eden, Sir John King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kinsey, J. R. Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kirk, Peter Rost, Peter
Emery, Peter Kitson, Timothy Royle, Anthony
Eyre, Reginald Knight, Mrs. Jill Russell, Sir Ronald
Farr, John Knox, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fell, Anthony Lane, David Scott, Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Langford-Holt, Sir John Scott-Hopkins, James
Fidler, Michael Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sharples, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Le Marchant, Spencer Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstorte) Simeons, Charles
Sinclair, Sir George Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Ward, Dame Irene
Skeet, T. H. H. Tebbit, Norman Warren, Kenneth
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Temple, John M. Weatherill, Bernard
Soref, Harold Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Wells, John (Maidstone)
Spence, John Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Sproat, Iain Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Stainton, Keith Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Wiggin, Jerry
Stanbrook, Ivor Tilney, John Wilkinson, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Trafford, Dr. Anthony Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Trew, Peter Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Tugendhat, Christopher Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Stokes, John Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Woodnutt, Mark
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom van Straubcnzee, W. R. Worsley, Marcus
Sutcliffe, John Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Tapsell, Peter Vickers, Dame Joan
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Waddington, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Wall, Patrick Mr. Jasper More and
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Walters, Dennis Mr. Keith Speed.
Mr. McNamara

I beg to move Amendment (nnnnn) to the proposed Clause, in line 9, at end insert: (c) any independent organisation of workers which would qualify to register or is registered by virtue of an enactment in force on the date before the commencement of this Act.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment we shall discuss Amendment (OOOOO), in line 9, at end insert: (c) an independent organisation of workers which is eligible for registration under the Trade Union Act 1871. and Amendment (ppppp), in line 25, after 'union', insert: 'or independent organisation of workers'.

Mr. McNamara

We have just heard from the Solicitor-General a learned exposition on why a group of organisations which include amongst their activities the negotiation of certain wages and working conditions should be treated separately. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that they were in a special category, that they were limited companies, or that they were chartered organisations. Therefore, he said, they did not fall into the category of trade unions and were to be treated separately. We then had a speech from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) explaining how these organisations were in some way different.

For the sake of argument, accepting the hon. and learned Gentleman's point that these organisations cannot come under the same umbrella as trade unions, I now reverse the argument and put trade unions under the same umbrella as chartered organisations and limited companies. In that way, we shall gain the equality for which the hon. and learned Gentleman looked, since all these parties will be treated on a par.

The Government's Amendments represent a piece of class legislation for these societies and organisations. For some reason, they do not wish to be associated with the horny-handed sons of toil in the A.S.T.M.S. Somehow, these organisations fear that they will lose out if they do not have a provision of this sort, since other organisations and unions will come in and swallow up little isolated pockets of their members. For those reasons, they need these special Clauses.

Earlier today, we discussed Amendments to alter the definition of a trade union, to leave out the provision that no organisation can be registered as a trade union if it is a limited company, and to enable these organisations to act as trade unions by amending their charters. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have heard no argument to show why this should not be done, apart from a strange argument of convenience. Therefore, to meet the convenience of this small group of esoteric organisations, we are obliged to spend a day on these special Clauses, and, furthermore, we need to put them into a special category. In view of that, I say that trade unions should be eligible to go into the same category if they so desire.

I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Barry has left the Chamber, because I wanted to deal with some of the points that he raised just now. The argument seems to have developed that the rôle and function of the trade union is purely and simply wage negotiation and regulation of conditions of work. This is far from the fact, although I do not deny that it is a principal object.

The rule book of my own union has two pages of objects of which the negotiation of wages and the regulation of conditions of work take up only three lines. The remainder of the rule book is about differences in the union, workers' control of industries in which they are engaged, various political, insurance, cooperative, publishing, financial, education and other kinds of benefit. Therefore, trade unions should be looked at in the same light as any of these other organisations. The regulation of conditions of work and negotiation of wages are its principal objects, but they are only two of a host of other important objects which the union seeks to fulfil for its members.

For example, the public might legitimately think that the only rôle of the B.M.A. was negotiating wages and conditions for its members and that all the other functions were secondary.

This group of Clauses takes away in part the power or the need to amend the rules to the same extent for these organisations as would be needed by a trade union. I understand that under paragraph 23 of Schedule 3 the Registrar may waive many of the provisions which are required. I understand that undertakings have been given that if there are difficulties about rules and regulations they will be waived for these various professional and other organisations.

The suggestion has been made that these professional organisations have another and very different function: that they are concerned with education matters—the standards of academic skill and achievement to which their members shall aspire before recognition. Doctors and lawyers, whether they have or have not got university degrees, can qualify through various professional organisations following approved courses of one kind or another, as can accountants and others. These professional organisations, rightly, have a keen desire to protect the standards of their members. But the same rule applies very much to trade unions.

For example, the print unions have a very keen and competitive craft system. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) who said that it was as easy for a man to get an apprenticeship in one of the printing unions as to get a camel through the eye of a needle. As is right and proper, the print unions have a professional pride and skill and, therefore, need to regulate the conditions of work and wages of their members on the labour market. This applies just as much to the professional organisations.

The A.U.E.W. has a grading structure. A grade I man can do a particular type of skilled job. As one goes down the list, so the degree of skill becomes less and a man is qualified to do less important jobs. This again is right and proper. The craft unions regulate standards of skill and expertise within themselves just as the professional organisations do. The boiler-makers union is another example.

To take the reverse side of the coin, a general union, seamen would not go to sea unless their ship had a properly qualified skipper, radio operator, engineer, and so on, and they, in their turn, would insist that their skills shall be recognised and used.

We all have an interest in professional skills and standards. This is not limited to the alleged professional organisations. Unions spend a lot of time discussing not only wages and conditions but professional standards and the application of new techniques in industry. In fact, D.A.T.A. has a reputation of being one of the foremost publishing organisations in terms of engineering technology in the books which it produces for its practising members. All these functions are part and parcel of what trade unions do, just as they are part and parcel of what the professional organisations do.

7.15 p.m.

Therefore, my point is that we also, when the Consultative Document was first produced—

Mr. John Fraser


Mr. McNamara

—were presented with a situation where professional organisations felt that their positions were being attacked. Those organisations went running to the Secretary of State screaming their heads off about what would happen to them. They used as their primary example the A.S.T.M.S. negotiating rates for the doctors. On the basis of what they saw happening as white-collar unions developed, particularly in semi-professional spheres, they took it that something had to be done for them. So the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends chose to announce, not to this House, but along the corridor, that they were to create a new privileged group to come under this special register. That announcement was made in another place, which was right and proper because of the hierarchical structure of things.

Having done this, the Government are now seeking to justify it on some of the most tenuous of legal arguments. We have not yet had from the Solicitor-General any concrete explanation why the Amendments which we earlier suggested could not have done away with the need for the Clause. Because we are suspicious, because we do not trust what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing, we say that if the Government do this, they should put the trade unions and any independent organisation of workers in the same position, and then we shall be able to judge the Government's veracity and integrity.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

Having listened to the debate for over three hours, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that we are taking too much time on this single new Clause, as we have, due to the continual repetitive speeches by hon. Members opposite, on so many other Clauses. If I am right in supposing that the timetable for Report is that desired by the Opposition Front Bench, then I should be critical of them for giving us a whole day on new Clauses 8 to 10 and, indeed, four days on Report for new Clauses 1 to 10.

The debate has, amongst other things, centred on the position of white-collar workers. I should like to think that both sides of the House are in favour of the development of white-collar or staff organisations. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is not here now, said that he would like to see the medical profession affiliated to the T.U.C.

The real attitude of the Opposition is apparent in their approach to U.K.A.P.E. According to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), U.K.A.P.E. has been successful and has increased membership rapidly over the last two years. This is highly commendable; but he is against this association, because he says that it is backed by the bosses. So far as I know, he has produced no evidence for this, but he has been hurling this accusation across the Chamber in Committee and on Report without sufficient support.

But the attitude of mind to which I am referring is the criticism of the members of U.K.A.P.E. because, in more or less the hon. Member's words, they had the interest of the people at heart during one of the recent disputes, when they were prepared to keep their vital industry going in the interests of the State. Here we come back to a discussion which we had in Committee about the meaning of the word "responsible". Those members of U.K.A.P.E., I think, showed a sense of responsibility not only to their own members but to other people, whereas, according to hon. Members opposite, responsibility in the trade union sense is entirely inward-looking and selfish. This is why U.K.A.P.E. has come under criticism.

But the ground has been taken from under the feet of hon. Members opposite. They thought that these Clauses, setting up the special register, were designed to support unions like U.K.A.P.E. But, as the Solicitor-General said, they are not, so far as he knows, eligible because they are not limited companies.

The ground has been taken from under the Opposition's feet also as regards their attitude throughout the debate towards members of the legal profession. Although there are many sitting on the Labour Party side of the Chamber, we have heard continual sneers. But they have discovered today, to their horror, that the Bar Council is not a closed shop, and that 10 per cent. or more—

Mr. Rose

The hon. Member is right, of course, in saying that the Bar Council is not a closed shop, but is this not a matter of semantics, since the requirement to take dinners, the requirement to keep terms for a period of three years, quite irrespective of practice at the Bar or obtaining certain standards of qualification, is nevertheless a necessity before one enters the profession and, therefore, becomes eligible to be a member of the Bar Council?

Mr. Butler

I will let the hon. Member debate that one with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I think he will agree that 10 per cent. of those practising at the Bar are not members of the Bar Council. So in that sense a closed shop is not operating in the legal profession. We have heard throughout the debate, evidence of this tendency to sneer at the white-collar worker—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]——which we on this side do not feel—

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

The hon. Member should withdraw that observation.

Mr. Butler

In certain cases, there has been a continual reflection on members of certain professions in the higher echelons of the white-collar workers.

Amendments Nos. (ooooo) and (nnnnn) suggest that the Opposition accept the principle of a special register. They cannot have it both ways. They seem to think that it would be right for trade unions to go on a special register because it gives special privileges. We have debated for three hours or more, trying to show that the privileges which new Clause 8 gives to those who join the special register are no more and no less than those which would be enjoyed by those unions which will join the normal register. They have to meet certain qualifications of independence, they have to be organisations of workers, and they must be involved in the regulation of relations between workers and employers. They will be subject to the same criteria as laid down in Clause 61. and, to answer the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), they will be subject to the same scrutiny of their rules as trade unions which are registered.

For that reason, these two or three Amendments are irrelevant and are put in merely for the object of spending an unncessary amount of time discussing new Clause 8. Therefore, I reject them.

Mr. John Fraser

The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) says that this debate has been a waste of time. The Government will concede that if one of these Amendments were accepted the T.U.C. could go on the special register by virtue of being an independent organisation of workers. Will the Solicitor-General now answer my point, that Clause 63(3) prevents the T.U.C. from being a trade union as defined by Clause 57(3) if one of its affiliated organisations is on the special register? In other words, it could be a trade union under the Bill if a chartered organisation which goes on the special register wanted to affiliate to it. Is that true or not?

The Solicitor-General

May I deal with that point quickly? Clause 63(3) may have that effect. That is why I was rather guarded in my reply, because of the relationship between new Clause 8(4) and Clause 63(3), which may raise matters which we should look at again in the light of the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). There is no intention of multiplying unnecessary complications.

But the basic provision that a federation should be comprised of registered bodies is the idea which we are pursuing. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point.

Mr. Dudley Smith

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) has made some trenchant and useful comments, but I do not go all the way with him in what he said about time being wasted today. One can argue a great deal about the Opposition's use of their time under the Guillotine, and I would criticise them for wasting time on certain provisions, but these debates today have been valuable, because they have shown the House and the country that there is nothing for the Government to hide in regard to this special register, that it is needed and that there have been representations over it. The arguments advanced by the Opposition so far lead one to believe that they view this, erroneously, as a piece of class legislation, when it is nothing of the sort.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that there is a good deal in common between the specially registered body and the ordinary trade union, and industrial relations are only one of many objectives. But the provisions of the Bill, once the specially registered bodies are registered, will ensure that they find conditions just as arduous as the ordinary trade unions unless they toe the line.

Like my hon. and learned Friend, I was disturbed when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred again to class legislation and implied that this was a spiteful piece of anti-unionism. When the truth is known, after the Bill has been working for some time, I believe that trade unionism will be increased. There is nothing wrong with this. It will probably be a good thing, provided that it is responsible trade unionism. I hope that the Bill will give every opportunity for it to be responsible.

7.30 p.m.

I sometimes think that just as some people I know see "reds under the bed" at every opportunity, so the Opposition see class legislation and class prejudice in everything which the Government and this party try to do. A narrow view like that makes no contribution to our proceedings. The allegation might be made far more effectively on other occasions. Here, there is no class prejudice whatever. We are trying to meet a difficult situation by establishing machinery without which a number of organisations would be in extreme difficulty—

Mr. Dan Jones

The Under-Secretary of State refers to "reds under the bed"; would he not agree that if the Bill ever becomes law it is lawyers who will be wanted under the bed?

Mr. Smith

No, I do not. I believe that once the Measure is working it will be well observed, by and large, and there will not be a rash of litigation. There may be some at first, but I do not think that the two sides of industry will be sitting there with their lawyers poised for action. I take a more optimistic view than does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)

We all know that the House, Ministers and others have had difficulty in understanding the Bill. How is the hon. Gentleman so confident that laymen in industry will be able to understand its provisions, even if they want to observe them?

Mr. Smith

I think that they will be able to understand them because in any case the Bill's main provisions are pretty well known, and we shall publish a code of practice which will be of assistance to both sides of industry.

The effect of the Amendments would be to extend the special register to include the majority of trade unions as now defined in the Trade Union Acts. It is very important to emphasise that it will be open to any independent organisation of workers which would be eligible for registration under the 1871 Act to seek registration as trade unions under the Bill.

There has been some misunderstanding on both sides because of the reference to the ordinary register as against the special register as though there were special provisions for the chartered bodies which will come under the register. It is difficult to refer to first and second registers because, again, that might give the impression of two different categories. Responsibilities under both registers will be very important. The special register is so called because it is different from the other.

It is worth saying once again that the special register is intended to cater for certain organisations of workers who would not be eligible to register as trade unions outside it. This is the only aim behind the provision. There is nothing sinister about it. These organisations are already subject to statutory administrative requirements which overlap certain of the Bill's administrative provisions, and they are not required to satisfy those provisions in the context of registration upon the special register.

If hon. Members would only stop to think, they would realise that if the door were open to all orthodox trade unions those unions would escape some of the provisions of the Bill. It is important that both sides of industry should have the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations. The chartered organisations which are seeking this provision are in the difficulty that if they tried to get on the ordinary register they would probably find themselves having to tear up their charters and their company status, and one of their primary aims very often is not regulation of industrial relations as such.

If, in particular, Amendment (nnnnn) were accepted, it would make the first register entirely redundant and we would then have a situation in which all the parties concerned in the Bill would be able to get admission to the second register—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I do not believe that this is justifiable. In any case, it is very odd for the Opposition to keep on complaining about our making it easier for organisations to operate under the provisions of the Bill when all the time they are criticising its provisions.

In these circumstances I think that the provision for special registration is right. The special chartered bodies should have the opportunity of fulfilling their obligations under the Bill, but only they should be eligible for the special register. They will gain nothing over the orthodox trade unions, which will themselves gain admission via the ordinary register, if they decide to register, as I hope they will, and I can foresee that there will not be many bodies which will finally achieve registration in the special register. In these circumstances, it is right to have the two registers but, if the Amendments were accepted, we would be doing away with the first register.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

The Under-Secretary has made it quite clear that he has not followed what we have been arguing all the afternoon. We are opposed to the special register. There is no doubt about our opposition to it. We are opposed to the other register, too. We are opposed to both registers with equal force, vigour and vehemence. We argue that the register and the special register, and the provision for organisations of workers who shall be eligible for neither register, relate to differences provided by the Bill itself. They divide workers into three groups of organisation. We are categorically opposed to anything that divides the working class—defining the working class as working down from, let us say, the managing director of I.C.I. to the chap who pushes a broom around in the street outside.

Mr. Dudley Smith

Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that these bodies should tear up their charters?

Mr. Walker

I say that the need for the special register has arisen only from the Government's introduction of the Bill which provides for all the registration requirements. It is only that which creates the need for the special register. We are opposed to the whole lot. If the Government had not brought in their silly, nonsensical onerous provisions there would not be any need for the registers. The Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) have accused us of wasting the House's time, but if anyone should be accused of wasting time it is those who have brought these proposals before the House.

I voice a strong protest that in spite of our having debated the Consultative Document and the Second Reading, the first we learned about the special register was not from any statement made by the Solicitor-General or by the Secretary of State or by the Under-Secretary of State, but from the Press in January. The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but I can produce photo copies showing that these provisions were disclosed in the national Press as long ago as January.

We pressed in Committee for elucidation of the point, but the Solicitor-General was mute on the subject. I have searched through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates on that occasion for the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but in vain. I recall that the same evening, I confess from a sedentary position, I heard voices around me challenging the Government over this special register, but we heard nothing until these provisions appeared on the Notice Paper last week.

We have grown accustomed to the characteristics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Important statements are funnelled to everybody except hon. Members. What a way to demean Parliament. Have the Government deliberately set out to bring Parliament into disrepute and contempt by considering everybody except hon. Members?

I also complain at the way in which the Government have conducted the negotiations over this matter. They told the T.U.C. that unless they got their observations on the Consultative Document in within a matter of weeks—by 13th November, 1970—the Government were afraid that there might not be time to consider the Congress's views. That did not prevent the Government from having long detailed consultations with the professional bodies to whom these provisions will apply.

It does not matter how much the Government protest, there is tremendous validity in our charge that bias is constantly creeping in over their attitude towards the ordinary workers who are represented by what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) called the "legitimate trade unions" compared with those who are catered for by the professional bodies we are now considering.

The Minister was right to point out that the Amendment would render the main register, or, by implication, the special register, redundant, because they would both be put on a par. That is what we want to do. We want in this sense to restore the position to what it was before this wretched Bill was introduced.

Time and again we have referred to the divisiveness of the Bill. The Secretary of State gave the game away when he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and declared that the nurses should have a right to express their wishes. Of course they should, and I have not heard any of my hon. Friends challenge that view. Indeed, we have been asserting all along that the workers should be heard, but we are talking about all workers, including the engineers, dockers, railwaymen and miners. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the same approach to these people.

Mr. R. Carr

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friends have suggested that, by this special register procedure, the Government are providing scope for some professional bodies which have hitherto paid little or no role in determining the terms and conditions of employment to emerge as serious rivals to trade unions. I go further than that. It seems that the Government are providing scope for them to emerge not just as rivals but as bodies which could replace the trade unions.

This point was made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he said that presumably the bodies which would be registered on the special register will have the same rights as a registered trade union to seek and establish bargaining rights and enter into agency agreements.

In other words, because these bodies are not primarily concerned with determining terms and conditions of employment, but have a number of other functions—I agree, of course, that legitimate trade unions have other functions, too—they may seek the rights and powers which the legitimate unions now have and, to that extent, may not only exclude certain legitimate trade unions but may weaken the collective bargaining in the area in which they operate.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr

I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. What he says could only happen, from the registration point of view, if that proves to be the wish of the majority of workers involved. Does he object to the wishes of the majority being served?

Mr. Walker

Under the Bill the workers concerned could challenge a bargaining agency agreement entered into between an employer and an organisation and, when that challenge is made, it would then go through the various stages, including the ballot, when it could be overturned. However, we know all about the inequitable provisions relating to ballotting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) showed that many of the special organisations with which we are concerned in this part of the Bill have purposes and functions which are little different from those of legitimate trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman made a point of the example of the Royal College of Nursing in trying to prove the need for this legislation.

But it has been functioning exactly as a trade union. It is on the Whitley Council, which determines terms and conditions of employment for nurses within the National Health Service. It shares a place on that council with the Confederation of National Health Service Employees. It did not need a special registration to organise that massive campaign two years ago against the then Labour Government, though it is interesting to note that its militancy has become rather subdued since the change of Government.

Reference has been made to the British Medical Association and it has been suggested that, without these special registration provisions, it could not function as a trade union. It has been suggested that it is not a body primarily concerned with functioning in this way. Are not hon. Gentlemen opposite aware that an offshoot of the B.M.A. is the British Medical Guild, which is run from the same office and by the same people as the B.M.A.? It was the British Medical Guild which, when the Labour Party were in office, persuaded 17,000 of the 22,000 doctors in the National Health Service to serve strike notices on the Service. It did not need a special register to enable the Royal College of Nurses and the B.M.A. to function most effectively as trade unions.

There are two alternatives from the point of view of bodies which may seek entry on to the special register. Either they have the same characteristics and functions as a trade union, and should therefore be required to register, if registration is to be a necessity; or they do not have those characteristics, and should not, therefore, be given the opportunity which the register will provide to supplant the legitimate trade unions.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman says that the problem with which we are now dealing arises only from my right hon. Friend's Bill. Would he not acknowledge—I am not making a tendentious point—that under the Bill which he himself helped to prepare, which enabled the C.I.R. to make recognition orders under Clauses 7 and 8 of that Bill, that power extended only to trade unions as there defined? If he intended that power to be available in favour of bodies like the Royal College of Nursing, he would himself have found, as discussion on his Bill proceeded, that it was necessary to make special provision for bodies like the Royal College of Nursing in a similar way.

Mr. Walker

Every time the Government are stuck, every time they run out

of argument, they use as their bolt-hole the Bill which was never debated by the House. It has become a sure sign that we are winning the argument. If we had not produced "In Place of Strife", and if we had not produced that Bill, it would have been necessary for the Government to invent it. It is their stock bolt-hole. I shall not enter into an argument now, and I should be ruled out of order if I did, about the contents of a Bill which is not before the House, which was never debated in the House, and which was presented about 12 months ago.

The arguments adduced by the Under-Secretary of State have not convinced us, and I very much doubt that they convinced his own side. There have been no adequate replies to the points which have been put, and I have no hesitation in saying that we shall divide the House on the Amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 285.

Division No. 264.] AYES [7.51 p.m.
Abse, Leo Crawshaw, Richard Gilbert, Dr. John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cronin, John Ginsburg, David
Allen, Scholefield Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Dalyell, Tarn Gourlay, Harry
Armstrong, Ernest Darling, Rt. Hn. George Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ashley, Jack Davidson, Arthur Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Ashton, Joe Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Atkinson, Norman Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Barnes Michael Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Barnett, Joel Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Hamling, William
Beaney, Alan Deakins, Eric Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Delargy, H. J. Hardy, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bishop, E, S. Dempsey, James Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Blenkinsop Arthur Doig, Peter Hattersley, Roy
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Dorman, J. D. Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Booth, Albert Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Heffer, Eric S.
Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur Douglas-Mann, Bruce Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bradley, Tom Driberg, Tom Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Rt. Hn Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Dunnett, Jack Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Buchan, Norman Eadie, Alex Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hunter, Adam
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Ellis, Tom Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Cant, R. B. English, Michael Janner, Greville
Carmichael, Neil Evans, Fred Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Fernyhough, E. Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fitch, Alan (Wigan) John, Brymor
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Cohen, Stanley Foley, Maurice Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Coleman, Donald Foot, Michael Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Concannon, J. D. Forrester, John Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Conlan, Bernard Fraser, John (Norwood) Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Freeson, Reginald Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Garrett, W. E. Kaufman, Gerald
Keltey, Richard Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawc) Small, William
Kerr, Russell Morris, Charles It. (Openshaw) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Kinnock, Neil Morris, lit. Hn. John (Aberavon) Spearing, Nigel
Lamhie, David Moyle, Roland Spriggs, Leslie
Lamend, dames Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Stallard, A. W.
Latham, Arthur Murray, R. K. Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Lawson, George Ogden, Eric Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Lcadbitter, Ted O'HaMoran, Michael Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick O'Malley, Brian Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Leonard, Dick Oram, Bert Strang, Gavin
Lester, Miss Joan Orbach, Maurice Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lever, Jit. Hn. Harold Orme, Stanley Summerakill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Oswald, Thomas Swain, Thomas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Palmer, Arthur Taverne, Dick
Lipton, Marcus Parker, John (Dagenham) Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Lomas, Kenneth Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiilery)
Loughlin, Charles Pavitt, Laurie Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Tinn, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Pendry, Tom Tomney, Frank
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson Pentland, Norman Tomey, Tom
McBride, Neil Perry, Ernest G. Tuck, Raphael
McCartney, Hugh Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Urwin, T. W.
McElhone, Frank Prescott, John Wainwright, Edwin
McGuire, Michael Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mackenzie, Gregor Probert, Arthur Wallace, George
Mackie, John Rankin, John Watkins, David
Mackintosh, John P. Reed, D. (Seilgefteld) Weitzman, David
Maclennan, Robert Rees, Mcrlyn (Leeds, S.) Wetlbeloved, James
MeNamara, J. Kevin Rhodes, Geoffrey Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
MacPherson, Malcolm Roberts, Albert (Normanton) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Roberts, Rt. Hn. G oronwy (Caernarvon) Whitehead, Phillip
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Robertson, John (Paisley) Whitlock, William
Marks, Kenneth Roderick, Caerwyn E.tBr'c'n&R'nor) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Marquand, David Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Roper, John Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Meacher, Michael Rose, Paul B. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mendelson, John Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Millan, Bruce Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Sillars, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Silverman, Julius Mr. Joseph Harper and
Molioy, William Skinner, Dennis Mr. John Golding.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Adley, Robert Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.OMoray&Nairn) Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Carlisle, Mark Fleteher-Cooke, Charles
Allason, James (Heme! Hempstead) Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Fookes, Miss Janet
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Chapman, Sydney Fortescue, Tim
Archer Jeffrey (Louth) Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Fowler, Norman
Astor, John Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fox, Marcus
Atkins, Humphrey Clegg, Walter Fry, Peter
Awdry, Daniel Cock'Eram, Eric Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Balniel, Lord Cooke, Robert Gardner, Edward
Batsford, Brian Coombs, Derek Gibson-Watt, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Cooper, A. E. Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Bell, Ronald Cordle, John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Cortield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Glyn, Dr. Alan
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) cormack, Patrick Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Benyon, W. Coslain, A. P. Coodhart, Philip
Berry, Hn. Anthony Critchley, Julian Coodhew, Victor
Biffen, John Crouch, David Gorst, John
Biggs-Davison, John Crowder, F. P. Cower, Raymond
maker, Peter Curran, Charles Cray, Hamish
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Green, Alan
Body, Richard d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Grieve, Percy
Boscawen, Robert Dean, Paul Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Bossom, Sir Clive Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Grylls, Michael
Bowden, Andrew Digby, Simon Wingfieid Gummer, Selwyn
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Dixon, Piers Gurden, Harold
Braine, Bernard Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bray, Ronald Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Brewis, John du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Dykes, Hugh Hannam, John (Exeter)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Eden, Sir John Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bruce-Gardyne, J Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bryan, Paul Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tync,N.) Hastings, Stephen
Buck, Antony Emery, Peter Havers, Michael
Bullus, Sir Eric Eyre, Reginald Hawkins, Paul
Burden, F. A. Farr, John Hay, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Fell, Anthony Hayhoe, Barney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Hicks, Robert
Higgins, Terence L. Miscampbell, Norman Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hiley, Joseph Mitchell,Lt-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W.) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Simeons, Charles
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Moate, Roger Sinclair, Sir George
Holland, Philip Molyneaux, James Skeet, T. H. H.
Holt, Miss Mary Money, Ernie Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hooson, Emlyn Monks, Mrs. Connie Soref, Harold
Hornby, Richard Monro, Hector Spence, John
Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Montgomery, Fargus Sproat, Iain
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Stainton, Keith
Howell, David (Guildford) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Stanbrook, Ivor
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Steel, David
Hunt, John Mudd, David Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Murton, Oscar Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
James, David Nabarro, Sir Gerald Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Neave, Airey Stokes, John
Je6sel, Toby Nichols, Sir Harmar Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Sutcliffe, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Normanton, Tom Tapsell, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Nott, John Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Jopling, Michael Onslow, Cranley Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Kershaw, Anthony Osbom, 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, Pet:r Percival, Ian Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Kitson, Timothy Pike, Miss Mervyn Tilney, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill Pink, R. Bonner Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Knox, David Pounder, Rafton Trew, Peter
Lambton. Antony Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Tugendhat, Christopher
Lane, David Price, David (Eastleigh) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John Proudfoot, Wilfred van Straubenzee, W. R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Le Marchant, Spencer Quinnell, Miss J. M. Vickers, Dame Joan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Raison, Timothy Waddington, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Wail, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Walters, Dennis
Loveridge, John Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Ward, Dame Irene
MacArthur, Ian Rees, Peter (Dover) Warren, Kenneth
McCrindle, R. A. Rees-Davies, W. R. Weatherill, Bernard
McLaren, Martin Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Wells, John (Maidstone)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon White, Roger (Gravesend)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
McNair-Wilson. Michael Ridsdale, Julian Wiggin, Jerry
McNair-Wilson, Patrick(New Forest) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Wilkinson, John
Madel, David Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maginnis, John E. Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Rodgere, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Marten, Neil Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Woodnutt, Mark
Mather, Carol Rost, Peter Worsley, Marcus
Maude, Angus Russell, Sir Ronald Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald St. John-Stevas, Norman Younger, Hn. George
Mawby, Ray Scott, Nicholas TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Scott-Hopkins, James Mr. Jasper More and
Meyer, Sir Anthony Sharpies, Richard Mr. Keith Speed.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 235.

Division No. 265.] AYES [8.2 p.m.
Adley, Robert Biggs-Davison, John Bullus, Sir Eric
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Blaker, Peter Burden, F. A.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Boardman, Tom (Leicestsr, S.W.) Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Body, Richard Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Boscawen, Robert Carlisle, Mark
Astor, John Bossom, Sir Clive Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Atkins, Humphrey Bowden, Andrew Chapman, Sydney
Awdry, Daniel Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Balniel, Lord Brains, Bernard Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Batsford, Brian Bray, Ronald Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brewis, John Cockeram, Eric
Bell, Ronald Brinton, Sir Tatton Cooke, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Brown, Sir Edward (Bat) Coombs, Derek
Bennett Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Bruce-Gardyne, J. Cooper, A. E.
Benyon, W. Bryan Paul Cordle, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Biffen, John Buck, Antony Cormack, Patrick
Costain, A. P. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Critchley, Julian Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Crouch, David Jopling, Michael Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, F. P. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Rees, Peter (Dover)
Curran, Charles Kaberry, Sir Donald Reee-Davies, W. R.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James Kershaw, Anthony Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dean, Paul Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ridsdale, Julian
Digby, Simon Wingfield King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Dixon, Piers Kinsey, J. R. Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kirk, Peter Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Douglas-Home, Rt Hn. Sir Alec Kitson, Timothy Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
du Cann, Rt Hn. Edward Knight, Mrs. Jill Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dykes, Hugh Knox, David Rost, Peter
Eden, Sir John Lambton, Antony Russell, Sir Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lane, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Langford-Holt, Sir John Scott, Nicholas
Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-u-Tyne,N.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Scott-Hopkins, James
Emery, Peter Le Marchant, Spencer Sharpies, Richard
Eyre, Reginald Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Farr, John Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fell, Anthony Longden, Gilbert Simeons, Charles
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Loveridge, John Sinclair, Sir George
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) MacArthur, Ian Skeet, T. H. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McCrindle, R. A, Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fookes, Miss Janet McLaren, Martin Soref, Harold
Fortescue, Tim Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Speed, Keith
Fowler, Norman McMaster, Stanley Spence, John
Fox, Marcus Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Sproat, Iain
Fry, Peter McNair-Wilson, Michael Stainton, Keith
Calbraith, Hn. T. G. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardner, Edward Madel, David Steel, David
Gibson-Watt, David Maginnis, John E. Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Marten, Neil Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Glyn, Dr. Alan Mather, Carol Stokes, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Maude, Angus Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Goodhart, Philip Maudlins, Rt. Hn. Reginald Sutcliffe, John
Goodhew, Victor Mawby, Ray Tapsell, Peter
Gorst, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cower, Raymond Meyer, Sir Anthony Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Gray, Hamish Mills, Peter (Torrington) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Green, Alan Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Grieve, Percy Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Tebbit, Norman
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Temple, John M.
Grylls, Michael Moate, Roger Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Cummer, Selwyn Molyneaux, James Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Curden, Harold Money, Ernie Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Monks, Mrs. Connie Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Tilney, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monro, Hector Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Montgomery, Fergus Trew, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Tugendhat, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Mudd, David Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Hastings, Stephen Murton, Oscar Vickers, Dame Joan
Havers, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald Waddington, David
Hawkins, Paul Neave, Airey Wall, Patrick
Hay, John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Walters, Dennis
Hayhoe, Barney Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Ward, Dame Irene
Hicks, Robert Normanton, Tom Warren, Kenneth
Higgins, Terence L. Nott, John Weatherill, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph Onslow, Cranley Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally White, Roger (Cravesend)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Holland, Philip Osborn, John Wiggin, Jerry
Holt, Miss Mary Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Wilkinson, John
Hooson, Entlyn Page, Graham (Crosby) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hornby, Richard Page, John (Harrow, W.) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hornsby-Smith,Fit.Hn.Dame Patricia Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Woodhouse. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Percival, Ian Woodnutt, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Pike, Miss Mervyn Worsley, Marcus
Hunt, John Pink, R. Bonner Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Younger, Hn. George
Iremonger, T. L. Price, David (Eastleigh)
James, David Proudfoot, Wilfred TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Mr. Jasper More and
Jessel, Toby Ouennell, Miss J. M. Mr. Walter Clegg.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Raison, Timothy
Abse, Leo Grant, George (Morpeth) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Murray, Ronald King
Alien, Scholefield Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Ogden, Eric
Archer, Peter (Rowley Aegis) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) O'Halloran, Michael
Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian
Ashton, Joe Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Oram, Bert
Atkinson, Norman Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Orbach, Maurice
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hardy, Peter Orme, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Palmer, Arthur
Beaney, Alan Hattersley, Roy Parker, John (Dagenham)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bidwell, Sydney Heffer, Eric S. Pavitt, Laurie
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Blenkinsop, Arthur Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pendry, Tom
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, Norman
Booth, Albert Hughes, Mark (Durham) Perry, Ernest G.
Bottomley, lit. Hn. Arthur Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Roy (Newport) Prescott, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hunter, Adam Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) lrvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill) Probert, Arthur
Buchan, Norman Janner, Greville Rankin, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cant, R. B. John, Brynmor Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carmichael, Neil Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roper, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen) Rose, Paul B.
Cohen, Stanley Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Kaufman, Gerald Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Coleman, Donald Kelley, Richard Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Concannon, J. D, Kerr, Russell Sillars, James
Conlan, Bernard Kinnock, Neil Silverman, Julius
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lambie, David Skinner, Dennis
Crawshaw Richard Lamond, James Small, William
Cronin, John Latham, Arthur Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Lawson, George Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tarn Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
Darling, fit. Hn. George Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Stallard, A. W.
Davidson, Arthur Leonard, Dick
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lestor, Miss Joan Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Strang, Gavin
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Linton, Marcus Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.
Deakins, Eric Lomas, Kenneth Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Delargy, H. J. Loughlin, Charles Swain, Thomas
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Taverne, Dick
Dempsey, James Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomas.Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Doig, Peter Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Dormand, J. D. McBride, Neil Thomson, Rt. Hn, G. (Dundee, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) McCartney, Hugh Tinn, James
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McElhone, Frank Tomney, Frank
Driberg, Tom McGuire, Michael Torney, Tom
Duffy, A. E. P. Mackenzie, Gregor Tuck, Raphael
Dunnett, Jack Mackie, John Urwin, T. W.
Eadie, Alex Mackintosh, John P. Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Maclennan, Robert Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, J. Kevin Wallace, George
Ellis, Tom MacPherson, Malcolm Watkins, David
English, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Weitzman, David
Evans, Fred Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.) Wellbeloved, James
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Marks, Kenneth Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fisher, Mrs, Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Marquand, David White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Whitehead, Phillip
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Meacher, Michael Whitlock, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Foley, Maurice Mendelson, John Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Foot, Michael Millan, Bruce Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Forrester, John Miller, Dr. M. S. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Freeson, Reginald Molloy, William Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Garrett, W. E. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Gilbert, Dr. John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ginsburg, David Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C. Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. John.
Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Roland
Clause accordingly added to the Bill.
Forward to