TRANSFER FROM PROVISIONAL REGISTER AND CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES

HC Deb 23 March 1971 vol 814 cc253-345

5	(1) In the case of each organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar shall consider whether it appears to him to be eligible for registration as a trade union or as an employers' association in accordance with section 63 or section 67 of this Act; and if, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of its entry in the provisional register, the registrar is satisfied that it is so eligible, he shall cancel that entry and register the organisation under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, as the case may be, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.
10	(2) If, in the case of any organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar is not satisfied as mentioned in the preceding subsection before the end of the period specified in that subsection, he shall serve on the organisation a notice stating that fact; and, where the registrar has served such a notice, he shall cancel the entry of the organisation in the provisional register unless, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of service of that notice, he is satisfied—
15	(a) that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, and
20	(b) that the organisation is taking all necessary steps for the purpose of so altering its rules.
(3) Where the registrar refrains from cancelling the entry of an organisation in the provisional register by reason that he is satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section, he shall serve on the organisation a notice allowing it such further period as he may consider appropriate for enabling it to make the requisite alterations in its rules.
25	(4) If, before the end of a further period allowed to an organisation under subsection (3) of this section, the organisation does not make an application for registration under section 64 or section 68 of this Act, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register at the end of that period; but, where the organisation does make such an application before the end of that period, then—
30	(a) if in consequence of that application the organisation is registered under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register as soon as the organisation is so registered, or
35	(b) in any other case, the registrar shall cancel that entry as soon as he has given his decision on the application and the time for appealing to the Industrial Court against that decision has expired without any such appeal having been brought or, on any such appeal, his decision has been upheld by the Court.
(5) No fee shall be payable for the registration of an organisation in pursuance of an application made in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First film.

3.33 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

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

Mr. Speaker

I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 12 and Government Amendments No. 70 and 71.

The Solicitor-General

That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.

The object of the two new Clauses is to simplify the procedure for the transfer of unions and employers' associations that are already registered on to the new register so as to ensure the continuity of their position and of their entitlement to rights which flow from registration, but at the same time to make plain that at any stage in the process a union may seek and secure cancellation of its registration.

Old Clause 75, which is being repealed, is replaced by new Clause 11. Old Clause 75 effected, as it stood, an automatic cancellation of provisional registration if the organisation made no application within three months for registration to be continued. That provision would have been somewhat inconclusive. It would have depended on lapse of intention and not upon a conscious decision by an organisation. It made no provision for an organisation to secure cancellation specifically of its registration.

Before I explain the effect of the two new Clauses, read together with the provisions of Clause 74, I should first draw the House's attention to the fact that Amendment No. 70 makes an alteration in Clause 74 so as to extend the period of one month to six months. If one considers the position as it will be and as it will work if the House accepts the Amendments, it will be as follows. As a result of Clause 74, all those organisations which are already registered under the existing legislation will be transferred to the provisional register. In addition, any other organisation which applies for registration within six months of the passing of the Bill will be admitted to the provisional register upon application under Clause 74.

Clause 75 will be replaced by new Clause 11, which will operate in the following way. During the next six months after an organisation has been entered on the provisional register, either automatically or as the result of application, the Registrar will consider the eligibility of that organisation for full registration, and he will apply the tests laid down in Clause 57 and Clause 63 with reference to trade unions and the corresponding tests and references to an employers' organisation. He will only at that point be considering eligibility —the question of whether or not the organisation qualifies as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will have to be satisfied, therefore, as to whether or not the organisation is based substantially on Clause 57—namely, the regulation of relations between employers and workers—whether it is independent and whether it is autonomous within the provisions of Clause 63.

The Registrar will not at that point be concerned with the rules but only with deciding whether or not the organisation qualifies and is eligible for registration, either as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will be doing that during the six months after the first entry in the provisional register. For him to undertake that consideration, in the great majority of cases no application will be necessary. He already has the information to enable him to undertake that consideration because it follows from the existing register that he will be able, by scrutiny of the rules and constitution of the existing organisation, in the vast majority of cases quickly to satisfy himself that the organisation is eligible either as a trade union or as an employers' association.

Therefore, under new Clause 11, the transfer visualised—to the full register —will take place in most cases without difficulty. Only a comparatively small number of doubtful cases will remain behind on the provisional register. As a result of the repeal of Clause 75, there will be no question of the provisional registration lapsing after a period of three months further has elapsed. What will happen is that, under subsection (1) of new Clause 11, the Registrar will tell the organisation whether in fact it is eligible for transfer to the full register or not. If it is eligible, if it qualifies as a trade union or employers' association, the Registrar will so certify, and it will be transferred.

Under subsection (2) of new Clause 11, if the Registrar forms the view that the organisation does not on the face of it qualify, perhaps because it is not independent, perhaps because its objects are not such as to qualify it under one or other of the headings, he will tell the organisation and give it six months within which to satisfy him as to its basic eligibility. If during that time the Registrar is satisfied that the organisation is taking all the necessary steps to alter its rules, again by reference to eligibility, he is enabled under subsection (3) to give it additional time to make the necessary changes.

Under subsection (4), if during the additional time given for the necessary changes to be made, the organisation does not make any application, does not take advantage of the time given to convert provisional registration to full registration, the provisional registration lapses. On the other hand, if the organisation applies, if it takes advantage of the additional time granted, the Registrar ends the provisional registration and the organisation is given full registration.

If he decides at that point that he cannot register it because the organisation is still not eligible, he does not cancel the registration until the time has run for the organisation to appeal against his adverse decision. The effect of that is to give the Registrar the opportunity to consider during the first six months whether the organisation qualifies for transfer to the full register by reference to his information. This gives organisations time to consider their position and ample time to decide whether any changes need to be made simply to meet these eligibility qualifications, time for the Registrar to consider how the organisations stand, time for them to make what further changes may be necessary.

Another effect is that non-registration, which is clearly an important decision for an organisation to take if it is already registered, would involve a conscious decision. It is plainly right that that kind of decision should not be taken lightly.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

Would rules which are debarred under the Bill be dealt with by the Registrar before or after provisional registration? At what stage would a union be required to alter any rules which were not in accordance with the Bill? If after provisional registration, how long would the Registrar give a union to alter such rules as it might be necessary to alter to comply with the Bill?

The Solicitor-General

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it is important to have the distinction clear. We are here concerned with whether an organisation is eligible for registration. In order to be eligible, it has to satisfy the Registrar only that it is an organisation the objects of which include the regulation of relations between workers and employers, under Clause 57, that it is an independent organisation, and autonomous, under Clause 63. We are not here concerned with the extent to which its rules comply with Clause 61.

An organisation now registered under the 1871 and subsequent Acts as a result of Clause 74 would move automatically on to the provisional register. Any organisation not so registered may apply within six months of the passing of the Bill for inclusion on the provisional register. In order to achieve that, it has to claim merely that it is a trade union or employers' association, or show that it is registered under the existing legislation. The Registrar then has six months in which, by reference to what he already knows about it, to decide whether it qualifies as eligible for registration as a trade union or employers' association, and he merely asks himself whether it has the right objects, whether it is independent, and whether it is autonomous. If he is satisfied, it is transferred to the main register.

He has an opportunity at that point to give the organisation a chance to amend its rules merely to qualify for eligibility. For example, it may appear from its rules, although it is not so in practice, that it is not independent; it may appear from its rules that it derives benefits from some employer, and that would destroy its independence. But if that is not borne out in reality, the Registrar would give it time to amend its rules so as to qualify as an independent workers' organisation. It is only with that kind of rule that we are here concerned. Thereafter, when it is on the register under Clause 71, the Registrar will undertake an examination of the rules in much greater depth in order to determine whether they are consistent with the guiding principles of Clause 61. Under Clause 71, he may give notice to the organisation drawing attention to defects and giving it time to remedy those defects.

3.45 p.m.

There are three distinct stages: first, provisional registration is automatic; secondly, there is transfer to the full register providing that the organisation is plainly an independent trade union, or plainly an employers' association; thirdly, there is the process of analysing the rules to see whether they are in line with the provisions of Clause 61.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

I follow that very clearly, for it deals with the union which accepts the situation and wants to comply with registration. For that union the Registrar takes these steps. Where in this process would a union contract out?

The Solicitor-General

I was coming to that next. I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of an automatic enrolling on inescapable terms of any union which is registered. This is the function of new Clause 12. That makes it plain, as it was not plain from the original Bill, that at any time the Registrar may cancel entry of an organisation in either the provisional or the full register.

The organisation may at any point, if it is now registered, for example, and would be transferred by Clause 74 to the provisional register and onwards, request the Registrar to cancel it, or the Registrar may cancel it if it ceases for some reason to exist, if is wound up, for instance.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

Is it the situation that unions which say that they will not register have to deregister themselves, have to take an actual initiative in the matter?

The Solicitor-General

That is the basic change. Organisations which have been registered for perhaps up to 100 years are carried through by this means, first, on the satisfaction of eligibility, and, at a later stage, if the rules are in line with the guiding principles of the Bill. But at any point an organisation has power under new Clause 12 to apply for deregistration so that an organisation may "resign" in that way. The Government believe that it is right that it should be in this form, that there should be no question of restricting the right of an organisation to apply for deregistration, but that it should be regarded as a conscious, important act taken after consideration.

This is a provision to make plainer what happens. The intention of the policy was always set out in Clause 74—that provisional registration followed from registration under the 1871 Act. The change is that a decision to withdraw, instead of being as a result of Clause 75 as it stood, a failure to respond, now requires an organisation to take a decision, but it is a decision which the organisation is entirely free to take, as we believe is right, under new Clause 12.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

The response of the trade union movement to the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put is that the Government have made a political rather than a legal decision. The trade union movement has a certain attitude towards the question of registration. The Government's decisison has nothing to do with legality, as the hon. and learned Gentleman makes out.

The Solicitor-General

This is not a decision prompted by what may or may not have taken place in discussions last week in considering the Bill. It was clear that the Bill made insufficient provision for the right of an organisation to cancel registration. It was also clear, on the question of timing under Clauses 74 and 75, that a whole series of decisions would have had to be taken within a very few months. We are making plain that the organisation registered now which qualifies for substantial benefits under the legislation remains so qualified, and it must, because it is right that it should, take a conscious decision, which it can take entirely freely, whether to withdraw its registration. That seems to be the right emphasis and right balance to achieve.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

Is the union's decision to be taken in any particular way? Is it to be a general executive decision taken in accordance with its rules? Or can the general secretary take the decision? If so, what is meant by the words evidenced in such manner as the Registrar may direct"?

The Solicitor-General

A union takes and has power to take decisions in accordance with its rules. Different unions have different rules. Decisions will be taken in accordance with them. The Bill makes no attempt to alter the powers and obligations of a union, its officers and executive, under its existing rules, and provided the union takes a decision in accordance with its rules the legislation will not affect it.

The provision to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) refers, namely, the requirement on the Registrar to cancel. at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct is the subject of Amendment (aaaaaa) and is not intended to restrict the union's power to operate under its constitution.

The proposed provisions are very close in form to those contained in Section 8 of the 1876 Act, which provided for a union applying for deregistration if it wished to do so and relates to the extent to which the Registrar must be satisfied by evidence about the decisions taken by the organisation. In other words, he could require a proper minute of the executive council or a properly certified decision signed by a union officer—something to enable him to be satisfied that the union have taken a decision in accordance with its rules. The provision is not intended to give the Registrar power to direct the way in which the decision should be made, as some comment in the Press would appear to indicate. The words evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct are a reproduction of the corresponding Section in the 1876 Act, save that that Act says evidenced in such manner as the registrar shall direct from time to time". But there is no difference, and no difference is intended. There is no trap or snare or anything of that sort. The union can and must take a decision about registration or about cancelling registration in accordance with its rules.

Mr. Orme

Is the Solicitor-General saying that the Registrar could object only if he felt that the rules had not been carried out correctly?

The Solicitor-General

Yes. He would he entitled to satisfy himself that the request of the organisation was valid and that there was no reason why he should challenge it. He would merely need to be satisfied that the decision was made at the organisation's request, "evidenced in such manner" as carried conviction. But if someone produced on behalf of a powerful union a piece of scrap paper with a note on it saying "Unauthenticated", the Registrar would not regard that as being evidenced in such manner as he might direct. The organisation would have to comply with its rules and, as with any other decision of importance, no doubt the decision could, in accordance with the rules, be followed by other members of the organisation through the courts if they wished to do so. There is no intention to restrict or limit the power beyond that.

Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

The Solicitor-General insists that the union must take the deregistration decision in accordance with its rules. It seems to me on a hasty perusal of my union's rule book that a change of rule would be required for that purpose and the rules of the union provide that the rules can be changed only every fifth year. The next year in which the rules revision conference of the A.E.F. meets is 1975. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the A.E.F. will not have the chance to deregister until 1975?

The Solicitor-General

That is not the intention.

Mr. Walker

Is that the effect?

The Solicitor-General

Clause 71(5), which is related to enabling a union to comply with directions of the Registrar in other respects, gives a union power to alter its rules notwithstanding any restriction on the frequency with which a rules revision conference may take place. It is not the intention of the new Clause to impose a random or arbitrary restriction of that kind. If that is a widely recurring problem, no doubt it can be considered. The intention is that the organisation should be able to make a request for cancellation, and the Registrar's power is confined to satisfying himself that it is truly the decision of the organisation and not merely a random comment by someone without authority to make it.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

There is a great deal of suspicion throughout the trade union movement that the new Clause has been designed so as to allow the Government in the next 12 months to insist that a ballot be carried out which would permit the union to contract out. That is the view of many trade unionists why the provision is worded in the curious way to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Is that in the Government's mind? Would the Government like to see a trade union take a ballot of its members before a decision to contract out of registration is taken?

The Solicitor-General

The law is not designed or intended to have that effect. The Government do not intend it to have that effect. The words evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct are a repetition of Section 6 of the 1871 Act relating to the way in which the Registrar must be satisfied. Whether within its rules a union should ballot its members on a decision of this importance is something which the union would decide in accordance with its rules. Many people might think that for a decision of this importance it would be no bad thing for the union to be sure that it was reflecting the wishes of its membership. But no provision in the Bill nor in the new Clause has the effect of securing that. It is left to the organisation to comply with its rules. The hon. Gentleman's suspicion is entirely without foundation.

Mr. Atkinson

If the Solicitor-General and the Government were able to advise trade unions on this point, would their advice be that they should conduct a ballot of members before contracting out of registration?

4.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I am not in a position to advise any given organisation. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advise his own organisation. It has been emphasised time and time again that registration under the Bill is a means whereby a workers' organisation registered as a trade union qualifies for access to the new agencies set up under the Bill, qualifies for the immunity preserved for registered trade unions by Clause 85, and qualifies for limitation on awards of compensation against it. The Government think that it is right that any organisation now registered and any organisation which applies within six months of the passing of the Act should have no impediments placed in its way for it, on behalf of its members, to acquire those benefits and rights. That is the object of Clause 74.

Beyond that, if an organisation were to decide, as it becomes free to do so under new Clause 12, that it would with its eyes open cast away that position, the organisation may well feel that its members ought to have their opinions canvassed and that they ought to have the matter fully explained to them before it took that action. However, that is a matter for the organisaion and for its membership and it is not something which the legislation seeks to define or restrict in any way.

Mr. Iremonger

is a very important point which is essential to the operation of the Bill when enacted. If a union deregisters without having sounded the views of its members and if in fact a majority of its members wish to belong to a registered trade union, presumably their option would be to form a union themselves and register that.

The Solicitor-General

There are a whole range of options which might arise. All those are matters which no doubt an organisation would bear in mind before reaching its decision as to what it did or did not do under new Clauses 11 and 12. The provisions here contained provide a clear choice and enable organisations to decide for themselves what their standing should be without depriving any organisation now registered of the advantages which will follow from its previous registration under the 1871 Act. It is on that basis that I commend the new Clauses to the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

The Clause will replace Clause 75. It is being discussed in association with Government Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Government Amendment No. 70 would replace "one month" by "six months" in Clause 74.

Like all the other parts of the Bill, to understand what is involved it is unfortunately essential continuously to go from one Clause to another. It is almost impossible to follow the cross-references in the Bill. I do not know how it will be possible for the average intelligent shop steward to understand the full ramifications of the Bill in view of the great number of cross-references which occur in it from beginning to end. I cannot understand how this can be considered seriously to improve industrial relations.

The Clause places all existing registered trade unions on the provisional register and they will be transferred automatically to the premanent register, providing they are acceptable under the terms outlined by the Solicitor-General.

The Solicitor-General said—it is important to note this carefully—that a union's registration would not lapse; it would have to take a conscious decision to come off the register. A little later the hon. and learned Gentleman said that de-registration will involve a conscious decision. This is the reverse of the previous proposal, which was that after three months trade unions would automatically be deregistered. In this case they will have to decide that they wish to deregister.

There is much more in this than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. The Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State constantly come forward with the apparently reasonable proposition that the objective is to help trade unions in their endeavours. This is what they are constantly trying to put across to the country. The first intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the T.U.C. and trade unions affiliated to it. Second, they intend to try to divide the traditional white collar unions from the blue collar unions. It is no good their trying to dress it up, because that is the intention of the Clause, and I will explain why.

Mr. Iremonger

rose—

Mr. Heffer

Normally I would give way to hon. Members who carry some weight in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman carries no weight whatsoever in this matter. Therefore I will not give way. There are hon. Gentlemen who have sat throughout the debates on the Bill and who, whether we agree with them or not, at least have a contribution to make; and I would give way to them.

Mr. Iremonger

On a point of order. I am not, I hope, hypersensitive or touchy, but the hon. Gentleman has been just a little less than entirely courteous to me and it might be fitting if he would give way for a moment.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Iremonger

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer

No, not now. I might give way in a few minutes' time.

I repeat that the Government's objectives are twofold: first, to embarrass the T.U.C. and the unions affiliated to it, and, second, to endeavour to divide the traditional white collar unions from the manual workers' unions. Despite the Government's efforts, I am afraid that their motives cannot be regarded as simon-pure. Their tactics are not to assist and accommodate the trade unions. On the contrary, they are designed to sow discord in the trade union movement.

I admit freely that there is a difference in tactics towards registration in the trade union movement, and that difference was expressed at last week's special Congress. There was a sizeable minority at that Congress—I say "sizeable"; in fact it was almost a majority—which wanted the T.U.C. to instruct its affiliates not to register, while the majority urged that the affiliated unions … shall be strongly advised not to become registered. The resolution passed at the Congress agreed that Before any union decides to apply to be entered on the provisional register, or to take any steps to remain on the provisional register, or thereafter to seek full registration, it shall inform the General Council of its reasons for doing so, and give the General Council the opportunity to express a view. It is essential for the Government to read not only the headlines in the newspapers, not only the columnists in the Sunday Press, most of whom I understand were briefed by the right hon. Gentleman or by members of his Department. It is also important for them to read the small print in the resolution carried at the special Congress. That points out clearly that the entire body agreed in that resolution that all the trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. should be advised not to register and, if they decided to register, at least to discuss the matter with the General Council, which could express a view about it.

I said just now that attempts were being made by the Government to divide one section of the trade union movement from the other—

Mr. Iremonger

Perhaps this is a convenient moment for the hon. Gentleman to give way. I wanted to ask him about his use of the word "embarrassing"—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) wish to make a comment?

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

Get on with it.

Mr. Iremonger

I am sure that if I am not getting on with it to your satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me without assistance from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was discourteous enough to suggest that I had a slight interest in this matter. Perhaps I might remind him that I introduced a Bill on precisely the same lines as the Government's proposals on 30th July, 1957. I have been concerned with these matters for some time.

I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that the Government's proposals were embarrassing to the trade union movement. Surely the embarrassment involved in having to make a difficult decision about which there are conflicting interests is just the sort of embarrassment that any democratically-elected body has to put up with from time to time.

Mr. Heffer

That intervention proves how unwise it is to give way to an hon. Member on the benches opposite. Such interventions contribute absolutely nothing. I was aware that the hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill in this House. Indeed, I think that he introduced one later than 1957, since I remember having the pleasure of voting against it.

I repeat that whereas the Solicitor-General again said today that the Government were not prompted by any attitude towards the T.U.C., clearly this new Clause is prompted by just such an attitude. The Government knew that there were certain differences amongst unions in the T.U.C. on the subject of registration. They also knew that an attempt was to be made to take a decision that the affiliates of the T.U.C. should not register as a whole. Clearly the Government decided that if they could sow the seeds of discord between one section of the trade union movement and another they would do it. Obviously right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept that argument, but that is the real situation. That is why this Clause has been introduced. It is no good the Government trying to suggest that that is not so. If it was not the reason, why did they introduce it at all? We have heard no serious argument from the Solicitor-General to convince us that the Clause was essential, that it would help the trade union movement, and so on. Clearly it was intended to sow discord in the ranks of the trade union movement.

We on this side of the House and the trade union movement as a whole are opposed to the concept of registration. Our reasons are well known, and they are clearly outlined again in new Clause 11. A trade union must satisfy Clause 63, and subsection (2) clearly precludes the T.U.C. from being a registered union unless all its affiliated constituents are registered. It is interesting to note that when that is contrasted with Clause 67, under which employers have to register. no such stringent condition applies.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about Clause 63(2) not entitling the T.U.C. to become a registered trade union, will he explain what activity the T.U.C. might wish to carry on which it would not be able to carry on under the Bill as it now stands? As I understand it, the T.U.C. itself has never been a trade union in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman now uses the expression.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

My point is that, under the Bill, there are certain activities about which the T.U.C. could find itself in difficulty if it were not a registered union.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

Such as?

Mr. Heffer

Does the hon. Gentleman want me to go through all the Clauses? I draw his attention to Clauses 85, 86 and 87. There are so many. It is impossible for me to outline them all. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. There is a whole series of unfair industrial practices in which, quite unwittingly, the T.U.C. might become involved.

Clearly, this is intended again to put pressure on the whole trade union movement in one form or another to accept registration.

I say clearly, because this brings out the point which I made earlier, that the intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the Trades Union Congress. Some unions may decide, under pressure, merely to exist as trade unions, to register. In my opinion, most will not register. But this could again develop tensions within the T.U.C. That, in my opinion, is precisely what the new Clause is intended to do.

There has been growth in the white-collar unions. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the fact that the white-collar unions are becoming allied to the blue-collar unions. In fact, the white-collar unions have joined the T.U.C. and are now part of that set-up. They were not in the past. It is that which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like and are afraid will develop in future.

Mr. Tom King

Why not?

Mr. Heffer

It is clear why not. It is because in the past certain of these organisations have tended to be the bastions of Conservative thinking. That is now crumbling. Because it is crumbling right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to try to solve this problem by attempting to split off the white-collar unions from the blue-collar unons. That is the intention behind the new Clause. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite coming to the House with the purest of motives and not telling us the real facts behind the new Clause. In my opinion, the new Clause is designed to weaken that alliance.

I repeat, it is interesting that under Clause 67 the employers, as federated organisations, do not have the same stringent conditions applied to them as the T.U.C. has under Clause 63. There are other objectives to registration which have been discussed many times in this House.

I accept that the Government have joined forces with the Opposition to eliminate from Clause 64(4,b) the words, and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration". The Government have accepted this proposal. I think that the Secretary of State has put his name at the head of an Amendment put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The terminology used was that there had been a meeting of minds on this issue. We accept that on this minor issue there has been a meeting of minds. We are grateful for this. However, at the risk of sounding churlish, it is by no means enough, because whether that Amendment has been accepted or not all the other facets of registration continue.

The trades unions are being offered concurrently the carrot and the stick to register. They are getting these two things at the same time whether they like it or not. Under new Clause 11 the unions will still have their rules vetted. The right hon. Gentleman spelt that out when he said that there were three stages. In the third stage we still come back to the situation that the rules of the unions will have to be vetted. Subsection (2,a) clearly states that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration", and Clause 64 will still lay down: Any such application shall be made in such form and manner as the registrar may require. Despite the meeting of minds, as it were, on the Amendment to Clause 64(4,b), the powers given to the Registrar will continue to be very wide.

We are saying that because the new Clause replaces a previous Clause but retains the principle of registration, on that basis alone we would oppose it. But, in addition, because it is designed to weaken, divide and split the trade union movement on the basis or registration, we feel that it is particularly mischievous. On that basis my hon. Friends would not, of course, give the new Clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Iremonger

There was not a single argument against it.

Mr. Tom King

I echo the cry which I heard from my right. As in so many of the debates on the Bill, one finds on the Order Paper what seems a perfectly reasonable Government proposition. One therefore approaches the Chamber with a sense of pleasant anticipation to know what terrifying flaws and sinister bogeys will be produced by the Opposition to oppose what might appear to the impartial observer as a sensible provision.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was unable to find any pretext for new Clauses 11 and 12, except that they were sinister devices to obstruct or embarrass the workings of the T.U.C.

I think I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to how these new Clauses arose. It would be generally agreed that when the Bill first appeared, and on full consideration in Committee, many hon. Members on this side of the House were not happy about the arrangements regarding the provisional register, the timings and difficulties which could arise. These could raise far more problems than were necessary. I do not know what representations were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I assure them that there was considerable pressure from my hon. Friends and myself to improve the method. I congratulate my right hon. Friend that he has recognised that this method could be and has been improved.

No one can seriously suggest, despite the efforts made by the hon. Member for Walton, that this arrangement deprives anybody of their rights or alters the situation in any major way. I thought that hon. Members opposite were fully in favour of contracting out, and this would seem to carry that principle a stage further.

The only point made by the hon. Member for Walton which I could establish and which seems quite without substance was that it was an attempt to divide the white-and the blue-collar unions. This may have been the outcome of the Congress at Croydon. However, to suggest that this is the intention of these reasonable new Clauses seems quite ludicrous.

I made a sedentary intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Walton, for which I should perhaps apologise. He explained that the white-collar unions had been regarded as the former bastions of Conservative thought. I increasingly recognise that there are changes in the pattern of life and perhaps some of the more traditional halls of Conservatism are not as established as they were. I am also increasingly convinced that some of the blue-collar unions and their members are more traditional bastions of Conservatism than their leadership might indicate. I commend the hon. Gentleman to bear that point more in mind. He will be surprised, as the polls have shown, how widespread is that support. Sometimes the polls, short of the ballot box, are the only way of discovering how people think on issues of this kind. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Industrial Relations Bill in this context. I do not pay so much attention to the polls, and I refuse to be accused of selectivity in that respect for there are good reasons to justify that thought.

We then move on to the really "sinister" clause which has been found by the Opposition in this quite terrifying suggestion, when cancellation is attempted by a union, at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct". My right hon. and learned Friend surely nailed that suspicion. It is not only established form in the previous Act. Surely all hon. Members recognise that, because of the issues which are at stake here, the Registrar would be grossly irresponsible and it would be quite unfair to them if he did not have an established method of receiving any resignations from the register.

4.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) in an earlier debate mentioned the financial implications of non-registration. This is important. The Registrar might be in a very difficult situation, between the Inland Revenue and a union, over payment or reclaiming of tax, unless he had very clear records to show whether a union had decided to deregister.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Is there not possibly another reason—that after the Bill has been in operation for a time registration may come to be regarded as a tremendous privilege, so that any union which lost this privilege without desiring to do so would deeply resent it? Thus, it is surely desirable that the Registrar should be utterly satisfied that this was the desire of the union.

Mr. King

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the matter even clearer. It is surely clear that it would be impossible not to have some clear and defined method under which a decision of such magnitude was taken. Undoubtedly, this decision could give rise to great feelings within a union, and it would need to be established and recorded without peradventure.

But my hon. and learned Friend has gone further. The hon. Member for Walton made great play with the Croydon conference. I do not know how selective was the presentation of the speeches in "24 hours", and I do not know how many hon. Members saw its fairly long programme on the Croydon conference and the discussion afterwards. But I felt great encouragement following the discussion, which gave the impression that the unions are increasingly beginning to recognise the benefits of registration. Mr. Jack Jones's comments were very guarded. He made it clear that he was not saying that his union would necessarily seek to deregister.

I felt from this interview and discussion that there was a very sensible and reasonable change of attitude at work, that people were realising that the terrors of the Bill were not quite as awful as they had imagined, and that they were beginning to recognise, as certain commentators are, that the Bill will become law and that the question now is how to live with it. We shall no doubt hear more of that on Third Reading—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

Would the hon. Gentleman not therefore concede that the new Clause might enliven the attitude of mind which says that only political strikes can really battle with this, as against those who say that there are other means of questioning the Government's strategy? Might this not swing the balance back to those who say that this is the only formidable way in which the Government can be contested on a matter to which the whole trade union officialdom is fundamentally opposed, whether they register or deregister, contract in or contract out? That has been clearly established.

Mr. King

I totally fail to follow the hon. Member. He has said that the only way in which they can face the situation is by political strikes, that, under new Clause 11, we are talking about registration and the transfer to the provisional register. But new Clause 12 clearly defines the ability to seek cancellation of an entry on the register. There was no suggestion of this from the hon. Member for Walton, who was desperately short of material and who would have jumped at any chance like this of widening the area of debate. The rights of unions are preserved under this. A correct union decision is in no way inhibited. If they wish to be deregistered, they will be able to do so. It is on those grounds—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

The hon. Member has said that he and his hon. Friends are the parents of this new Clause. If there is a substantial difference between contracting in and contracting out, which appears to he the difference envisaged by the new Clause, would he tell us what it is? So far he has not done so. and neither has the Solicitor-General.

Mr. King

The hon. Member has done something which many hon. Members have to face, but this is the first time that it has happened to me. He interrupted the last half sentence of my peroration.

The differences simply are that there is the risk of default and the problem of fixing time limits between going on to the provisional register and going on to the permanent register. This provision will make it now the responsibility of the Registrar, and a union, by failure to act at any one time, will not miss out or be at a disadvantage from which it may be difficult to recover. The unions can continue with the least disturbance.

The objective which I support, and which I know many of my hon. Friends support, throughout the Bill is that there should be the minimum disturbance to existing good industrial relations and the existing conduct of good unions. It is for that reason that I support the new Clauses.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

We have consistently opposed registration, not because in itself it is not a good thing—unions have been registered under the 1871 Act—but because this is registration which carries with it the right of a Government agency to write the rules of a union. Because of this the unions have opposed registration. Originally the Bill stipulated that unions would not be automatically registered but would have to apply for registration. On that basis, the Trades Union Congress decided—this was endorsed at Croydon—to recommend strongly to their affiliated member unions not to register under the Act.

But this provision attempts to change that position. Automatically a union will be regarded as having registered unless it makes a conscious effort to secure de-registration. The situation has changed, therefore, because the Government have been afraid to face the fact that the unions would decide in large numbers not to register. So now they have turned face about and are saying, "You are registered whether you like it or not, and if you disagree you must make a conscious application before we will consider it".

The loose wording of the new Clause may allow situations in which unions cannot deregister because the Registrar has been given very wide powers under new Clause 12(1)(a) to decide what the terms should be for deregistration. He could say that he was not satisfied that an application represented the view of the union membership. It says that he must be provided with evidence which would lead him to believe that the request of the organisation is a bona fide request. So he could say to a union, for example, "You are bound to seek a ballot of your membership". He could say, "I will disregard any application from the national executive of a union" or, "In future there must be a 50 per cent. vote or a two-thirds per cent. vote". He could say almost anything. I therefore cannot understand why, the Registrar is given such wide powers under the new Clause to demand the type of evidence that would convince him that a union should be deregistered.

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

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to make bogeys where they do not exist. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that the wording of the new Clause is almost identical, as far as evidence is concerned, to what was in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, which was passed under a Labour Government. The Building Societies Act, 1962, also refers to the registration of a society being cancelled at the society's request, if that is thought fit, and to the production of evidence in such manner as the central office may direct. The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, uses precisely the same phraseology. This is, therefore, well established phraseology, and it is well known that it does not carry the implications which the hon. Gentleman is trying to place on it.

Mr. Fletcher

I am aware that it follows the wording of the 1871 Act, but under that Measure when an organisation applied for registration it was able to get benefits from being registered; from, for example, the income tax point of view if it provided benevolent grants and other payments. Under these provisions, however, there will be disadvantages for such a union. For example, its rules will, in essence, be written by the Registrar. [Interruption.] He must agree the union's rules before it can be registered. The situation under this Measure compared with the past will be entirely different.

Mr. Gower

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of this wording was included in "In Place of Strife", which was introduced by his right hon. Friend less than four years ago? Why does he accuse us of making the Registrar rewrite the unions' rules when these provisions are broadly in line with proposals introduced by the Labour Party?

Mr. Fletcher

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly reminding us of "In Place of Strife" and that so-called affinity, which I do not see, between that and this Bill. My views on "In Place of Strife" should be known to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I never supported it.

Under this legislation the I.R.C. is given specific instructions on how to interpret the Bill. The Registrar is given no such instructions. For example, on the cooling-off period the High Court judge is told exactly the circumstances in which he can decide whether the Secretary of State should be allowed to take certain action and whether a strike is a danger to health, national defence or the economy. No such instructions are given to the Registrar.

It would have been more honest for the Solicitor-General—he admitted that he would like to see a 50 per cent. membership vote taken on whether a union should register—to have stipulated these instructions in the new Clause. Without them, the Registrar will be able to make his own decisions on whether a union should register and, if so, whether it should be allowed to get out of registration. This will make it difficult for unions to become deregistered, for the Registrar might insist on keeping them registered.

4.45 p.m.

If unions decide on non-co-operation, they could agree to be registered—they would take a negative attitude because registration is automatic—but then not implement the Bill. For example, they could remain registered but when asked by the Registrar to provide copies of their rules for approval refuse to provide them. The initiative for deregistration would then have to come from the Registrar, who would be obliged to say, "This union can no longer remain on the register because it is not implementing the Bill by refusing to submit a copy of its rules, which I wish to vet."

The Government could find themselves in a lot of trouble over this and perhaps they are being too clever by half by insisting on the stipulation in the new Clause. By washing their hands of the decision whether a union should be registered, they may be putting themselves in very hot water. Indeed, the situation is likely to be worse under these provisions than under the Bill as originally drafted because the original draft stipulated that unions must make individual applications for reregistration. The new Clause will put even further obstacles in the way of the Bill being implemented and is likely to increase non-co-operation among unions.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

I will correct only a few of the many errors which were perpetrated by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) in his list of suppositions. The first is about the Bill as previously drafted, particularly in respect of entry on to the provisional register by trade unions.

Under Clause 74 unions will be entered on to the provisional register regardless, and it is under Clause 75, which we are repealling with the new Clause, that registration will automatically lapse after three months. It is about this point that I particularly wish to speak.

My hon. and learned Friend's words about the need for a conscious decision to de-register is a vital part of this whole question of registration and deregistration. This is vital in the interests of democracy in the trade union movement and in the interests of individual union members. It is not reasonable for a decision which puts a union so much at risk to be taken unconsciously or unknown to its members.

The Bill is complex and is certainly not fully understood throughout the trade union movement. A decision which affects, amongst other things, the funds of the unions which, if not registered, would be at risk in certain circumstances, and particularly which affects the access to the new legal agencies, must not be taken unconsciously. Although it is not included in the Bill, I should consider favourably a requirement that there should be a ballot amongst members before deregistration took place, to ensure that members at least knew that their benefits and privileges under registration were being taken away.

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said—if I heard him correctly —that he did not want a ballot before a decision to deregister was taken. If he did not say that, he certainly implied it. That is typical, I regret, of some of the leadership of the trade union movement. They are not genuinely prepared to take into account what their members feel. We on this side of the House want to protect individual members from that attitude. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in supporting the new Clause.

Mr. Orme

I intervene in the debate on new Clauses 11 and 12 because the whole concept of new Clause 12 is highly political. Why did the T.U.C. make this number one of the seven points just debated at the special Congress and recommend strongly against registration? Why was it the issue of the two vital battles which took place at the T.U.C., one on the Clause and one on the subject of further industrial action, if it is not important? Of course it is important. It is important because the Government consciously are taking away fundamental rights which have existed in the trade union movement since the original register was set up in 1871. It is a direct interference in the running and conduct of independent trade unions. It is no good the Solicitor-General using honeyed words to try to explain away this situation.

It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said that pressure had come from the Tory back benches not to give the trade unions more freedom but to reverse the existing procedure. As new Clauses 11 and 12 make very clear, unions now have to contract out as opposed to contracting in.

Mr. Tom King

In what way do these allegedly harsh, repressive new Clauses 11 and 12 in any way diminish the rights or opportunities of trade unions?

Mr. Orme

That is the whole purpose of the registration. This is the first step of the Bill and where it all begins, in the form of registration.

Mr. King

They can deregister.

Mr. Orme

The Bill makes it very difficult. It actually financially penalises unions which deregister. It takes away rights established since the 1871 Act, and people talk about it not affecting the trade unions because they have the right to deregister.

This is one of the most conscious political actions that the Government are taking. The Solicitor-General knows that it is political. It is aimed at the centre of the trade union movement. The trade unions are so bitterly opposed to registration because flowing from registration are not only the financial implications but the rights of the Registrar to interfere in the conduct and running of unions. Unions can no longer be free and independent but, like Spanish or Czech trade unions, they will come under the corporate State approach.

The trade union movement in this country may be open to criticism. We on this side of the House have never defended it as being perfect, because no organisation in this country is perfect. But we believe that trade unions are the bastions of democracy, and because of that we and the trade unions believe that registration and all that flows from it—the right to interfere and to adjudicate over rules, and the rules that will be imposed—is wrong. When asked to give examples, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked, "Do you want me to name the 150 Clauses? Just look at Clauses 85, 86 and 87"—on unfair industrial practices. All this flows from the issue of registration.

Mr. Tom King

I know that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to avoid answering my question, but he has now rather gone on to a Third Reading speech. His objections to the Bill apply irrespective of new Clauses 11 and 12. My question was as to how new Clauses 11 and 12 make the Bill in any way more penal on the trade unions.

Mr. Orme

I thought that I had answered that point without the remarks that the hon. Gentleman makes about my speech, which I should not deign to make about that of the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had answered the point by what I said about contracting in and out. It is a tightening up of the situation. It is apparent. The hon. Gentleman must tell us of the endeavours of himself and his hon. Friends about the pressures on the subject of registration. There is no doubt that when the Government saw that the trade union movement could see a way of getting out of co-operating on the Bill, obviously the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State decided, therefore, to make it even more difficult to circumscribe the Bill by bringing in these Clauses and giving the Registrar the right, in new Clause 12(1), to peruse the decision of a union and, as the Solicitor-General said, the right, if necessary, to instruct that a ballot be taken.

Who is this individual, the Registrar? Who is he that has a right to take this sort of action with independent organisations?

Mr. Adam Butler

In the Bill there is no case that the Registrar could require a ballot to be taken in this case for registration or deregistration. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the trade unions as being the bastions of democracy. If that is so, would he favour a ballot to find out what the members of his union, in a democratic society, would like to do in the case of deregistration?

Mr. Orme

In my union, if the members want to take such a decision, they would take it on any issue. I am objecting to their being forced by the Bill and the Government to do things to which they are completely opposed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not written in words in the Bill that a ballot ought to be taken; neither does it say that a ballot shall not be taken. That is our point.

In this important debate, I have tried to make the point about the T.U.C. very clear. Neither the Solicitor-General nor the Secretary of State has taken this issue on board. They do not appreciate that the decisions taken at Croydon were not a crumbling away of the opposition but that the T.U.C., in reaching the seven decisions, have said that it will mean non-co-operation and have strongly recommended non-registration. These are the issues that the T.U.C. have had to decide. This body, which has always abided by the law has recommended that the trade unions should have nothing to do with the register or with the Bill. That is the issue, and that is why we are so totally opposed to new Clauses 11 and 12.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell

I have listened with growing interest to what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the other speakers have said. I am glad that the hon. Member for Salford, West recognises that trade unions are not perfect. I am only sorry that he went on to oppose any effort to ensure the raising of the standards of the minority to the best which already exists. In the week after we have seen the political strikes, where an endeavour was made to intimidate and to bring outside pressures to bear against the democratic decision of this House, I do not know how we can defend the trade unions as the bastion of democracy.

Mr. Orme

The industrial strikes led by my union last Thursday and on 1st March—which I supported—were industrial action against an Industrial Relations Bill that will take away unions' rights. The trade union movement was defending democracy and its rights. It was not asking for anything, it was defending.

Mr. Mitchell

On the strength of that, I suppose it could be said that those who drink and are opposed to legislation about drinking and driving have a right to go on strike to pressurise Parliament to accept their point of view. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the whole basis of democracy is that decisions are taken in this House and not through pressure from the streets.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that he opposed registration because it enabled a Government agency to write the rules of a trade union. Those were his words, and there was no disclaimer from his hon. Friends. Having sat, as he has, through the debates on the Bill, he must know that what he says is blatantly untrue and a gross distortion of the contents of the Bill. He knows perfectly well that a trade union writes its own rules and the only purpose of registration is to ensure that those rules comply with the standards laid down in the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman said is a gross distortion and I hope he realises the danger of making such speeches which go uncontradicted. He makes speeches to his local trade union, his constituents and his trades council on the same lines, and they all swallow it, hook, line and sinker—

Mr. Ted Fletcher

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell

I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I would not dream of attacking him without giving him the right to reply.

Mr. Fletcher

Clause 65 stipulates what must be incorporated into the rules of a union before it can be registered. The Registrar, therefore, has the power to say to unions, "Your rules must conform with Clause 61." As a consequence of this, the rules of the unions will not be decided democratically by the members of the unions but by the Registrar, and they will have to conform with what the Registrar considers is the correct interpretation of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell

I have listened to that with considerable interest. In order to comply with the requirements of Clause 65, one would be concerned with organisations of employers. With great respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is in error.

As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman is twisting the facts when he says that a Government agency will write the rules of a trade union. All that will happen is that the rules of a trade union will have to come up to the standards laid down in the Bill. The union writes its own rules. The standards with which the rules will have to conform are the standards which the majority of our best trade unions already observe in such matters as outside auditors, a proper right of appeal and a fair hearing for a member who is disciplined, and so on.

We have consistently heard this gross distortion of fact. If it is allowed to go unanswered it will cause considerable damage in the country and, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it will rebound on his own head when, in about six months' time, members of a trade union realise that the gross exaggerations of Labour Members of Parliament have no substance in fact.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

I must apologise, I mentioned Clause 65 when I should have referred to Clause 61, which states: The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding prnciples in the conduct of every organisation of workers … The so-called guiding principles set down by the Government have to be written into the rules of every union applying for registration. As a consequence, the rules of a union will be decided by the Registrar, not in accordance with the democratic wishes of the members of the union, but in accordance with the Bill and what the Government consider to be fair and unfair industrial practices. It is irrefutable that the Registrar will, in effect, be writing the rules of the union.

Mr. Mitchell

I do not see how anybody could logically come to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman came to in his interruption. Clause 61 contains a series of reasonable and innocuous requirements. The first one that catches my eye is that there shall be a secret ballot. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a secret ballot would be objectionable to trade unions in the election of their officers? Is he suggesting that a person who is disciplined should not have notice in writing of the charges which are laid against him? Is he suggesting that that person should not be afforded a full and fair hearing? The Bill sets down the standards which the best of our trade unions now enjoy, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no intention, and no power within the Bill, for the Registrar to write the rules; he merely has to see that the organisation comes up to the standards set down.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not for the first time, made an extraordinary speech. He said that he opposed the whole concept of registration and then, in the next breath, he complained that one of the hardest, toughest and most unfair parts of the Bill was that the T.U.C. could not register. How he can back both those horses in the same speech, I find difficult to understand. What does the T.U.C. want to do which registration would enable it to do and which the Bill prevents it from doing? When I asked this of the hon. Gentleman in an intervention, he was kind enough to say that I had only to look at Clauses 85 and 86. I have looked at Clauses 85 and 86. He wants the T.U.C. to be able, under Clause 85, to induce a breach of contract to which it is not party, without notice, over the head of the trade union that is party to it. Does the hon. Gentleman really want the T.U.C.—I refer here to Clause 85 (1,b)—to go over the head of a constituent union? That is the only justification which one can draw from his reference to Clause 85.

The hon. Gentleman charged the Government with endeavouring to divide the trade union movement and to sow dissension. No attempt by the Government to divide or to sow dissension among trade unions could be nearly as effective as the undemocratic decision to call political strikes last week and the action subsequently taken to victimise those who carried on working, and did not support those strikes.

Mr. Atkinson

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is well known in the House for his sick jokes, and he returned to them today, though not in their original form when he used to talk about the executioner patting the patient on the head and saying, "Do not worry, it will soon be over, and it is quite painless". It is indicative of his whole approach of the Bill, and I take some of his remarks today as being in the same sick vein.

Mr. David Mitchell

This is a case of mistaken identity. There are two Members with my name, and I have never perpetrated that joke, sick or otherwise. I never heard it until now.

Mr. Atkinson

It was a variation. I was referring to the theme and basis of the hon. Gentleman's humour, which one might call a sort of "phenobarbed" humour. I shall not go into detail, but that is the spirit of his approach to the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman forgets how much of the Bill is now superfluous. The T.U.C. having taken its decision about registration, Clauses 57 to 84 do not now have the meaning which they once had. We ought to recognise the seriousness of the decision taken by the T.U.C. Moreover, the Labour Party, before long, when it is back in Government, will repeal the Act, if it ever becomes an Act. It is, therefore, temporary legislation, with a good measure of superfluous matter in Clauses 57 to 84. That is the true situation now.

In one sense, it is profitable for me that the Government have introduced these two new Clauses, particularly new Clause No. 12, for I once predicted that the Government would bring in something like this because they would want to introduce compulsory ballots for trade unionists prior to a decision to deregister a union. I still stick by that, and I am prepared again to have a small wager with the hon. Member for Basingstoke about what will be the Registrar's attitude towards a compulsory ballot in such circumstances.

I come to the question raised by several hon. Members about whether a ballot is a good thing or not, or whether we should support a ballot to decide whether a union should deregister, if that be the word. The trade unions are adamant in their attitude to the whole business of registration. This is why the vote was so overwhelming against any form of registration, why the unions generally decided as they did, and why my own union, in particular, took that line.

5.15 p.m.

The A.E.U. rule book, Rule 14, paragraph 13, lays down: Whatever is agreed upon at the Rules Revision Meeting shall be binding upon all members. Because of the Bill, the Registrar will be compelled to alter that rule at the outset. The Rule will then have to read: Whatever is required at the Rules Revision Meeting, or is required by the Registrar, shall be binding upon all members". That rule will be the first casualty, and this is why my union will never register, for it will be a condition of registration that that rule be altered in that way.

My union's attitude is conditioned by the fact that a Conservative Government, or representatives of the employers, will, through the medium of registration and the Registrar, redesign the rule book and make the altered rules binding upon all members.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham)

Since the hon. Gentleman so pointedly says that this will be done by a Conservative Government or employers' representatives, may I remind him that in the original proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) there was a requirement that unions should register? Obviously, this is not a political act by a Conservative Government, for the Labour Government intended the same, out of sheer necessity.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

Tried to do it, but we stopped it.

Mr. Atkinson

This is not the time to analyse the differences between the present Bill and the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", which, as the hon. Lady knows, was not a Bill. It was not proposed legislation.

Mr. Orme

Nevertheless, we voted against it.

Mr. Atkinson

The question of registration in these terms was not included in my right hon. Friend's Bill, and the whole purpose here is totally different. I do not want to go into the argument about consent politics, but the origin of what the hon. Lady is talking about is the concept of consent politics on this side of the House. There are great arguments about that, but that is not the point now. We are discussing the proposals of a Conservative Government and their need now to introduce compulsion in registration.

The change to which I have referred would be only one of many changes which the Registrar would demand in the rules of the A.E.U., the Engineering Section of the A.U.E.W. That change alone would never be agreed by the membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, so that is the first answer on the question whether we support the idea of ballots.

It is not suggested that there should be a ballot about whether such a change in the rules should be made. I do not hear hon. Members saying that the democratic process should be so extended that the Registrar would have no powers of compulsion and the matter should be left entirely to a ballot of members. They say that the Registrar should have compulsory powers, backed by the law, to force union members to do certain things. Yet they say that we should have a ballot on other things. They want to extend democracy in certain directions but not in others. In other words, the Registrar should have compulsory powers, but the members should not have the right to decide what sort of rule changes are to be demanded by him.

Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman said just now that under no circumstances would his union's membership approve of registration. Can he say on what authority, on what consultation with his members, he can tell us with such assurance that members of his union would never approve of registration? I strongly suspect—I shall be grateful if he can disprove this—that the maority of the members of his union would wish it to be registered.

Mr. Atkinson

That is a fair question. I could make an equally bald statement that I was pretty sure that members of the A.E.U. would not by ballot agree to a £2 a week reduction in their wages. Conservative hon. Members could rightly ask what grounds I had for that assertion, but I have a curious sort of class instinct that makes me feel that a ballot of members on that matter would result in an overwhelming vote against such a reduction. Incidentally, that is the policy the Government are proposing at present, but that is beside the point.

Mr. Orme

That is what it is all about.

Mr. Atkinson

My hon. Friend is correct. We are entitled to make the assumption that the members would reach that kind of conclusion. That answers the whole question of the ballot.

The other thing that the Registrar will not have is Rule 13 in the A.E.U. rule book, dealing with the function of shop stewards. This, too, is what the Bill is about: its purpose is to change the relationship between shop stewards and the executives of unions. When we examine Clause 79, and particularly Schedule 3, from which the Registrar will derive his instructions, we can understand clearly why he will want to change large sections of existing rule books. Rule 13 is a very important rule, which the Registrar cannot possibly accept. He would therefore demand that it be changed.

Subsequent Clauses give detailed reasons why the Registrar cannot accept such rules dealing with the functions of shop stewards. Under Clause 79 he is compelled to issue a public warning to a trade union for persistent breaches of trade unions rules and to lay a complaint before the Industrial Court. If he is to follow that procedure, certain parts of trade unions rules must be altered, because part of the purpose of this legislation is to demand that executives discipline shop stewards who attempt to defend their right at the point where they meet the employer. If the purpose is to disarm the shop stewards' movement, as I believe, then all the rules of any trade union that determine the functions of shop stewards must be radically changed so that the Registrar can carry out his functions.

Therefore, it can be seen that one of the reasons why trade unions refuse to register is to maintain their rule books intact. The membership of the engineering section of the A.U.E.W. would never agree to the elimination of Rule 13, or to its drastic change, which would rob the shop steward of an elementary right to defend the members he represents against initiatives of employers that are detrimental to his members' interests. Therefore, there is a total resistance to registration because of the very nature of the Bill. That is why we argue against the proposed new Clauses 11 and 12, and 12 in particular.

Some of us accurately predicted quite a long time ago not only that trade unions would not register but also that the Government would want to do something about the conditions under which the Registrar would allow a union to contract out of registration. The reason is that there is a curious wording in the proposed Clause. The Government could say that it is rather curious because it is 100 years old. We are celebrating this week, I think, the centenary of the first registration. As part of the centenary celebrations, we are opposing the Clause. The words are used in quite the opposite way to the original intention 100 years ago. Subsection (1)(a) of new Clause 12 says that the Registrar may cancel an entry at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct,… The provision can be put in that way only for the simple reason that the Registrar must have powers to discover whether the request to contract out is official and whether it represents the will of the membership. The Government may say that that is necessary, but it is a curious state of affairs that if one of our members in Tottenham just drops him a note on a postcard to say that 1½ million members want to contract out of registration, the Registrar would take that seriously and initiate a number of moves to test the validity of that bit of paper. Of course, he would be concerned only about a request coming from a union on the required notepaper and signed by the person responsible for that union, so there is superflous wording here. What does the Solicitor-General mean?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an official letter, when there has been no ballot, would necessarily represent the views of the members? That is what the Registrar will have to take into account. There have been occasions, such as the recent one-day strikes, when no ballot was taken and it was not certain that the decision represented the will of the members.

Mr. Atkinson

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in those assumptions. First, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the engineering industry and the leadership given by the A.U.E.W., the decision to take strike action on the two days resulted from a vote by the union's national committee, a rank-and-file policy-making body elected by the members, with 65 in favour and four against.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

It was not a ballot.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

It is not in the rules.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

It is.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Gentleman does not know the rules.

Mr. Atkinson

The union has a national committee whose responsibility it is to decide policy. It decided by 65 to four to have the stoppage on two days, and therefore the executive was instructed to take that action.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I was challenged by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who said that I did not know the rules. It says firmly in the rule book that in such a case if the national executive wants to test the members on any important issue, which includes a strike, but which could also include registration or non-registration under the Bill, it shall take a ballot of members unless there is no time to do so. There was plenty of time on the strikes, and there will be plenty of time on registration.

Mr. Harold Walker

Rule 14, paragraph 15, on page 57 of the rule book, says: The National Committee"— which is the national policy-making body composed of lay members, not the national executive— shall be empowered to call or terminate a general strike when in their opinion time would not allow the members to be balloted".

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

That is what I said.

Mr. Atkinson

There is no time on this occasion.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

There is plenty of time on registration.

Mr. Atkinson

There is a democratic procedure for electing a rules revision committee, which is an extension of the national committee, and a democratic, rank-and-file appeals committee to which appeals can be submitted on such matters. That is the democratic structure of the union.

I do not know whether you are equipped with a rule book, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one of the things that is so enjoyable about these debates is that we have the most interesting discussions on A.U.E.W. rules. Perhaps we could add an A.U.E.W. rule book to your collection of books on procedure and your other reference books, to clear up some of the difficulties experienced by Conservative hon. Members.

I did not want to lengthen the debate, but I wanted to make clear why we attach such importance to the whole question of registration and why the T.U.C. decided to advise its affiliated unions not to register. The reason is that we look upon the requirement as a direct interference with certain democratic rights. Moreover, there is something repulsive about having a Government who are not sympathetic to the aims of the trade union movement re-writing its rules.

The whole question is about the balance of bargaining power in industry. It is based upon the complaint of employers that that balance has shifted in favour of the trade unions and that it is now necessary to restrain the shop stewards' movement in particular and the whole of the trade union movement in general. To do that, the massive apparatus of registration is to be set up, designed solely to change the rules, which up until now it has been the democratic right of the unions to decide.

5.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

It has become fashionable for people arguing the same case as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), including leaders of trade unions and the T.U.C., to say that everything would be all right in the Bill if only the Government would go back to Donovan. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that Donovan expressly recommended that status as a trade union should be confined to a body which registered as a trade union. Donovan made two alternative recommendations for compelling such registration—either by the withdrawal of privileges under the 1906 Act or, as the minority suggested, by the imposition of cash penalties. One of the consequences of registration was that a union should have rules dealing with a number of things. In addition, paragraph 654. referring to shop stewards, said that the rules should prescribe

1. "(i) their term of office; and
2. (ii) the authority charged with, and the manner of, issue and withdrawal of credentials."

Paragraph 656 said: The requirements as to rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive, and will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar, than in the past. It provided for appeal to the industrial board in the event of arguments between unions and the Registrar as to whether the rules complied with the standards. How can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the adoption of that kind of provision for registration as a matter of course, with supervision by the Registrar of the rules of trade unions, including those rules dealing with the credentials of shop stewards, is a monstrous and horrendous intrusion invented by the present Government?

Mr. Atkinson

For precisely the reason that the Bill constitutes an over all threat to the trade unions. Donovan was not talking about registration for the purpose of making compulsory some of the terms of the Government's legislation. I have tried to restrain myself and not to be provoked into political comment, but it is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to reiterate the parrot cry we heard so often before 18th June—that, if given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out Labour Party policy. I take it that what he means by all these references to Labour Party or Labour Government documents is that, given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out the policy advocated by the Labour Government previously. I take it that there is complete acceptance of that fact—that we have complete agreement on it.

In the same way, it is equally dishonest to talk about the recommendations of Donovan when, at the time, Donovan was not talking about the need to require unions to register in order to implement the terms of this Bill. Registration has become so obnoxious in the form in which it is required because of the terms of the Bill, because of its class nature.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

The Government want Donovan only in parts.

Mr. Atkinson

Precisely. They are using arguments put by Donovan and his recommendations in support of proposals which are in fact entirely different from those which were recommended by Donovan. The then Minister of Labour, when setting up the Donovan Commission, was not talking about the sort of Draconian ideas proposed in the Bill. This is why trade unions have set themselves against registration and, come hell or high water, no trade union will register under these terms. New Clause 12 is such that it ensures, if it ensures nothing else, that the largest of our trade unions will never register.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he had won some money on the new Clause earlier in the proceedings. I wonder whether it is within the rules of order for me to offer a wager to him on the last statement of his peroration. I would say that within 12 months of the date that the registration provisions come into force at least 25 trade unions will have registered. If he wants to think over the sum involved—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

What odds?

Mr. Page

Even money?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. The Derby has not come yet. I think that we should keep to the terms of the new Clause.

Mr. Page

Perhaps I can try to make a contract with the hon. Member for Tottenham afterwards. He always makes the most forward and straightforward contributions because he is never afraid to let cats out of the bag. To mix my metaphors a litle further, he has introduced a new kind of bogey man. Instead of the "Red under the Bed" we have the "Tory under the desk". The tale goes that, wherever the Registrar goes, he will be followed by "Big Brother" from industry wearing a silk hat and carrying a microscope, and that in this way we are stifling the just activities of the trade unions. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) not interrupt, because it makes my own speech a little difficult? Are you making a point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have not made any point.

Mr. Page

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Tottenham said that many trade unions did not want to register and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that registration gave disadvantages. If a trade union feels that it does not want to register and that registration would give disadvantages to it, it can always ask to be removed from the register. It seems to be perfectly straightforward. On the other hand, a trade union which believes that registration is nothing to be afraid of, and gives advantages, has the opportunity to register. All hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), are building up too much of a bogey about registration. I want to quote some words of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). The quotation is not from what she said eighteen months ago or even nine months ago. It is from 10th February. She said, referring to the Donovan Commission: It pointed out that there must be rules which deal adequately with the problems of elections and how a ballot is conducted if one is held and which deal adequately with rights of appeal, and so on. No one disputes that that is the end. There is nothing unacceptable in those principles. I, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends, would go further. I do not believe that there is any objection in principle to compulsory registration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 640.] There we are! The right hon. Lady is the leading spokesman of the Opposition on this Bill. What the Opposition object to is the fact of the unfair industrial practice in connection with registered and unregistered unions.

The hon. Member for Walton said that there was a distinction in the new Clause in favour of the white collar workers. I did not quite follow his argument. But I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that there is a distinction in the new Clause against workers' organisations which wish to register on the special register. As it stands, the new Clause gives an opportunity for trade unions which are at present registered to continue their privileges for a period of six months, and this seems fair, sensible and reasonable. On that register they will be provisionally assumed to have the privileges of registration. Is any time limit to be enforced on the Registrar in accepting or refusing those organisations which wish to appear on the special register? Otherwise, perhaps it would he advantageous if there were a provisional special register as well, so as to get rid of the discrimination against those who wish to appear on the special register because of the privileges given to those on the ordinary register or on the provisional register under new Clauses 11 and 12.

5.45 p m.

The Solicitor-General

Bodies which are qualifying for the special register or may qualify for it are by definition those which have not yet registered under existing legislation, and they are in the same position as other workers' organisations which do not qualify for the special register and which also have not registered. Other workers' organisations have six months within which to apply for inclusion on the provisional register under Clause 74, and any other organisation has the opportunity of applying for inclusion on the special register. It is true that it has to show that it prima facie fulfils the qualification conditions, but since these are bodies so far outside the scope of registration altogether and are given that period of time within which to apply and in which their registration as a company continues, the provisions seem more or less parallel.

Mr. Page

I will read carefully in HANSARD tomorrow what my hon. and learned Friend said. The argument was used yesterday by hon. Members opposite that unions which register quickly would be in a privileged position as opposed to those which did not register. From that argument, it would seem, for example, that if the National Union of Public Employees were to register immediately, as no doubt it will, quite sensibly, it would then he at an advantage in demanding the privileges of representation of nurses and midwives as opposed to the colleges of those two organisations. However, no doubt this point will already have been thought of by the organisations concerned. I put it into the general argument to produce something new for the House to think about.

Mr. Gower

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) made the statement. "My union will never register". My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) quarrelled with him about the accuracy of his prophecy. I do not know which of them is nearer the truth, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he must surely have found from his own experience in the House that it is unwise to use a word like "never". To use the word "never" is presenting a tremendous hostage to fortune. I heard is used in connection with events in Cyprus many years ago and it was used about events in Africa. In nearly every case, the person who said "never", regretted it later.

Mr. Atkinson

I qualified it. It was not an open-ended use of the word. I said that I expected us to have another Labour Government soon, and that the Labour Party has committed itself to repeal the Bill and therefore it is only a short time that I am talking about.

Mr. Gower

The hon. Gentleman may again be going ahead of events. In any case, I am not sure that he is accurately stating the position of the Opposition. I have not seen any official statement by the Opposition collectively that they will repeal the Bill.

Mr. Heffer

It was said on Second Reading.

Mr. Gower

Nothing has been said about it since then and it was said by individuals and not by the Opposition generally or by their official spokesmen.

The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others have repeatedly asserted the value of democracy in the trade union movement, and we accept what they say; it is wonderful. At the same time, they express their fear that the Registrar may permit anything so undemocratic as a ballot. Apparently, in their view the democracy of the trade unions cannot possibly survive anything so undemocratic as a ballot.

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not leaving out the National Union of Mineworkers, which has recently conducted a ballot.

Mr. Gower

I am not leaving out anybody. I am merely observing that hon. Members opposite have expressed the sharp fear that registration may introduce a ballot, which is apparently inconsistent with the democratic spirit which pervades the trade union movement.

I am amazed that the Opposition cannot accept that significant benefits are to be obtained from registration. The value of those benefits was underlined yesterday. The Opposition Front Bench pressed for the inclusion of bodies such as the College of Nursing which, so the Opposition said, should participate in these benefits on terms similar to those for what were described as the normal trade unions.

Mr. Harold Walker

The hon. Gentleman must read the Bill—and it is we who are frequently accused of misrepresenting the Bill. Let him understand very clearly that there are no benefits to be won from registration, but that severe penalties may be incurred for not being registered by unions which for 60 years have enjoyed privileges and immunities in the law of which they are now to be stripped as a consequence of not registering.

Mr. Gower

I venture a prophecy, perhaps not so permanent as that of the hon. Member for Tottenham, that after the enactment of the Bill, more and more unions will recognise the valuable benefits to be obtained from registration.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

The hon. Member has referred time and again to the benefits to be gained from registration. To help the House, will he state one benefit which a union may obtain by registration and which it does not now possess?

Mr. Gower

There are numerous benefits. I will do what we were invited to do yesterday and refer to the numerous Clauses of the Bill. I clearly do not have time to give details, but there are numerous advantages which unions which register will enjoy.

As a corollary, it would be serious for a union to decide to contract out, as it has been described. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) regretted the change in procedure from failing to contract in to formally contracting out. For any union, the decision not to register, to apply for deregistration, as it has been called, will be a serious matter. That is why it is right and proper that the Clause should enable unions to do so only after careful consideration of the consequences of not being registered. I disagree with the hon. Member for Darlington, for this procedure will enable the decision to be taken only after mature and serious consideration.

What have been called the "penalties" of not registering are not real penalties. It merely happens that unions will have the right to decide, and those which register will have additional advantages. It is therefore appropriate that this should be a decision made with solemnity, and I welcome the change which the new Clause will make.

The hon. Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Salford, West asked who the Registrar would be. He will be a person appointed, as other registrars in similar positions have been appointed —the Registrar of Companies, the Registrar of Friendly Societies and others. All our experience leads us to believe that persons appointed to positions like these conduct their duties with a great sense of responsibility.

I cannot believe that anyone appointed a registrar under an Act of Parliament would be biassed against any party. It is not conceivable that the Registrar will be biassed in any way against a union or an employers' association. Our history in this respect shows that a registrar in an appointment like this will be deserving and worthy of the confidence of all parties in industry. The change is of great advantage and the fears expressed by the Opposition cannot be substantiated.

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

As we are beginning to enter the final stages of this long and in some ways tortuous Report Stage, it is heartening to see quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed the course all the way through, although they have not had to be here, as some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have had to be here, and they are still in good voice. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) always speaks pertinently on these occasions and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) still shows the same enthusiasm in his speeches as on the first day. I disagree with almost every word he says, but I admire his pertinacity.

There was one thing he said this afternoon in which I thought him absolutely right. He implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. Indeed it is, and we make no secret of that.

Mr. Atkinson

The hon. Gentleman is taking a curtain call. We have not arrived at that yet. The hon. Gentleman is calling us back to take our farewells of the audience, but that is for tomorrow.

Mr. Smith

We have not seen as much of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) as we have of the hon. Member for Salford, West, but we always welcome him to our proceedings, for he is always guaranteed to give us an entertaining if not particularly relevant speech.

The hon. Member for Salford, West implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. It is. Incidentally, it has always been an objective of the Government to maintain continuity between the present register and the register to be introduced by the Bill. We believe the new Clause to be a more efficient way to reach the objective. The Government are entitled to have second thoughts and have done so on a number of matters, and we believe the new provision to be advantageous.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is a very suspicious person. He said that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was reasonable and helpful in his manner, but that that manner covered something sinister. He believed that there was more to it than my hon. and learned Friend's mollifying way of explaining these provisions.

I emphasise to the House and anybody else interested in these provisions that we are not trying to embarrass the T.U.C. or the unions by these two new Clauses. We do not seek to be divisive. There is nothing sinister about our proposals. They are perfectly fair.

6.0 p.m.

I could understand the objections of hon. Members opposite to our proposals if registration were to be compulsory or if it were to be made law that unions could not resign if they wished. There is nothing in our proposals along those lines. It is open to any union on the register to contract out if it so wishes.

We are glad that the Trades Union Congress took the more moderate line open to it last week and we hope that common sense will prevail on the question of registration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that there is hope in what happened at the conference last week. I am far more optimistic than is the hon. Member for Tottenham. Alas, because of my duties, I was not able to see either the direct relay or the late night summaries of the conference on television, but I have read the newspaper reports and spoken to people about it. They said that a growing sense of responsibility was shown and that there was hope for the future on the registration procedure. It is encouraging that the T.U.C. leadership at least is showing responsibility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater that the free will of the union is in no way inhibited by the new Clause or by registration.

We have always thought, and we still think, that trade unions would be ill advised to boycott the register and to contract out. We think that they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. But we do not intend to deny them the right to make that choice. This is a fundamental matter and they will be able to make their choice about it. If they are foolhardy enough to wish to contract out, that is up to them. We believe that it is very much in their interests that they should be registered.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Now that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the advantages which he sees in registration, perhaps he would tell us a little about Amendment No. 70 relating to Clause 74 which deals with an organisation not presently registered under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 to 1964 and which provides that within the period of six months it may make an application to be entered on the provisional register. What advantage will there be to a trade union to apply to go on the provisional register?

Mr. Smith

In due course, if the organisation's rules satisfy the Registrar, it will be able to obtain full registration.

Mr. Sillars

Last night, the Secretary of State said that if any organisation wished to go straight on the permanent register, without having to go through the provisional register, that is open to it under Clause 64 ".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 151.]

Mr. Smith

It can do that if there is no doubt about its qualifications. The point about provisional registration is that if there is a doubt the Registrar will be able to look at the rules of the organisation and advise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) raised the pertinent and important question of the rules. I confirm that the unions will still write their own rules and that they must be up to a reasonable standard. The Registrar will not write the rules.

Most of the organisations entered on the provisional register are likely to be eligible for full registration as trade unions or employers' associations. They will meet the qualifications without any great difficulty. The hon. Member for Tottenham says that on no account will his union or any other union meet them. I think that he is mistaken. I believe that quite a number of unions will register. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that in due course this will be looked on as a privilege by all the organisations involved and they will become fully fledged members of the register. I can see no difficulty arising concerning registration provided it is wanted by the unions. These provisions are not so arduous that they cannot be met. I should be amazed if any of the major, reputable and well-known unions did not qualify.

Mr. Atkinson

Subsection 1(a) of new Clause No. 12 provides that the Registrar may cancel an entry at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct". We accept that the application must be sent on the organisation's notepaper, but what else does the proposal mean? Why is it written in that way if it does not mean taking a ballot of the membership?

Mr. Smith

My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained that point to the hon. Gentleman. However, there will be a separate debate on the Amendment.

There is now an automatic transfer from the provisional register to the full register unless there are deficiencies which the Registrar can look into and give assistance on. However, there is provision in the new Clauses for cancellation on the application of the union to the Registrar either from the provisional register or from the main register. If registration is to remain voluntary—and we believe that it is an important principle —organisations must have the right to change their mind about whether they want to be registered.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—because it is like a red rag to a bull to him—I should like briefly to go back to the proposals which the Labour Government brought forward with a great flurry of trumpets and which were a do-or-die affair for them. I wish to quote from paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite are thoroughly embarrassed by it and hate being reminded about it. I accept that the hon. Member for Salford, West has always been implacably opposed to registration. At the time that these proposals were produced, the Labour Government had a majority and they would have become law but for the fact that their leadership "chickened out" of the issue.

Paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife" says: The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period. That is perfectly right. Further on it says: Unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters (e.g. admission, discipline, disputes", and so on. Again, there is no contention about that. But then the paragraph says: Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board. There are no financial penalties for non-registration in our proposals. We believe that it is important and in the interests of unions that they should be registered, but we shall not penalise financially those which do not register. The matter is open to them. It is a voluntary scheme. That is why the proposals in our Bill are better than the proposals in "In Place of Strife", and that is why I recommend my hon. Friends to support the two new Clauses.

Mr. Harold Walker

I want to take up the point which is raised again and again about "In Place of Strife" and the former Government's Bill. I said last night, and it is obvious that I was correct in so saying, that every time that the Government get themselves into a debating fix their safe get-out is to fall back on "In Place of Strife" and the Bill which the House did not debate.

It is important that the House should recognise two things. First, "In Place of Strife" was a White Paper and not a Bill. The Bill was radically different, for reasons which we all know; but it was a Bill which was never debated by the House. If the Government would like on a future occasion to allocate time so that we could debate the contents of that Bill, I for one would be absolutely delighted to make a public comparison between the contents of that Bill and the contents of this Bill.

I want to state very briefly why "In Place of Strife" was very different from the Bill which was subsequently presented to the House. I want to comment on the difference in the registration requirements referred to in "In Place of Strife". The Under-Secretary said that, unlike in "In Place of Strife", there are no penalties in this Bill for unions which refuse to register.

In that case, what is all the fuss about in the trade union world? Why the significance which the Government attach to registration? The Government know full well that it is because of the penalties that arise from the deprivation of unregistered organisations of the immunities and protections provided by the law. These are much more severe than any fines are likely to be. They place much more severe restrictions upon organisations of workers and put them into the hands of the Registrar and into the rôle of the Registrar as provided for in the Bill and in that way are much more onerous than anything which we could have conceived.

Much more important and significant about "In Place of Strife" was the fact that we said, before it was drafted and at every stage in its gestation, that if the T.U.C. were prepared to discuss with the then Government ways and means of tackling the disorder which undoubtedly exists in industrial relations we were prepared to modify our policy.

The Tory Party has never fully acknowledged that. Indeed, I do not think that the Tories understand what happened in the summer of 1969 when the T.U.C. accepted—[Laughter.]—The sneers we are getting from hon. Members opposite only confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said in his opening remarks, namely, that the Government have clearly declared war and are hostile in their attitude to the T.U.C. The sneers we are getting are confirmation of that.

The Tory Party has never acknowledged, and indeed has never understood, what happened in that summer when the T.U.C. accepted a rôle which hitherto had been denied to the T.U.C. and when, for the first time in its history, individual unions surrendered their autonomy to the T.U.C. so that the T.U.C. could have a more effective rôle in industrial relations.

If the Under-Secretary will talk with his officials at the Department and will look back at the record from June, 1969 to June, 1970, he will see that time and time again the T.U.C.'s disputes committee and Mr. Victor Feather, in particular, intervened in disputes in a way that it could not have done before to bring them to a speedy conclusion. That is something to which we pay tribute, but I am still waiting for many hon. Members opposite and for the Government generally to make the same acknowledgment of the service rendered by Mr. Victor Feather.

One small point which might have been explained but which was not is the contradiction between the non-fee provision, where a union is willy-nilly transferred to the permanent register and the requirement to fork up £25 if it applies to go on to the register. In speaking of a contradiction, I am talking about the contrast between new Clause 11(5) and Clause 64(4).

The Solicitor-General did his usual trick with Donovan. When the Government run out of steam on "In Place of Strife" they like to select a fragment of the Royal Commission's Report which will serve their needs of the moment. The Report is becoming rather like the Bible: anyone can quote it to suit the particular case and needs of the moment.

I draw the Solicitor-General's attention, not to the paragraph which he quoted, but to paragraph 793 which states: The conditions of registration would be the same as they are at present under existing legislation, modified by such alterations as Parliament hereafter thinks fit to make as a result of this report or for any other reason. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say that that is the exercise that we are going through—proposing the modifications that Parliament thinks fit.

The Commission then went on to give an example: For example, future conditions might include filing a copy of the union's constitution (unless this is already embodied in the rules) and proof of a fee-paying membership. There is an enormous gulf between that approach and what is being put to us by the Government.

The Solicitor-General

Will the hon. Gentleman read the next sentence?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker

Yes, I intend to read to the end of the paragraph: Again, we make recommendations in Chapter XI as to how the requirements of the law in relation to the rules of trade unions might be revised. All the existing provisions of the law would continue to apply to trade unions, including the protective provisions of the Trade Union Act 1871"— to be abolished by the Government— the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875"— to be modified by the Government— the Trade Disputes Acts 1906"— to be partly repealed by the Government; then the Act of 1965, which is to be repealed by the Government— and the Trade Union Act 1913. All those Statutes would continue in force under the recommendations of the Royal Commission and would continue to apply to all the unions.

I know that the Solicitor-General is bursting to get me to turn back to Chapter XI. I will quote him one or two particular passages from Chapter XI. The Commission said this in paragraph 656: The Registrar already advises unions informally on the drafting and the re-drafting of rules, and we hope that this beneficial practice will continue. The possibility exists however that this agreement may at times arise between the Registrar and a trade union as to whether its rules comply with the revised requirements of the law. We think that such disagreements should be referred for settlement by the independent review body whose establishment we propose. The Royal Commission went on to say this in paragraph 658: We envisage a review body consisting of three members, of whom two would be chosen from a panel of trade unionists… What a contrast that is to the dictatorial authority and absolute power which is being given to the Registrar under the Government's proposals.

It is a matter for regret that the Solicitor-General persists in his selective quotations from the Report of the Royal Commission and, incidentally, keeps on pretending to the House and the country at large—why he should accuse us of misrepresenting the Bill I do not know—that in this respect the Government are in line with Donovan, when clearly they are not. He suggests that the Govern- ment are in line with Donovan in withdrawing the present immunities from unregistered bodies, when in fact it was a recommendation of only seven out of the 12 members of the Royal Commission.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman says that the recommendation for the withdrawal of immunity from unregistered unions was a recommendation of only seven members, implying that for that reason it should be disregarded. Would he, therefore, prefer the alternative recommendation suggested in paragraph 804 of Donovan by the minority of five— The need for compulsory registration could be met by a provision that the members of the Executive Committee of a body which should, but does not, register as a union should be liable to a penalty for each day of default."? Which of the two Donovan recommendations does the hon. Gentleman prefer; and is it not the case that other hon. Gentlemen who are arguing in favour of Donovan reject it as soon as they are brought face to face with it?

Mr. Walker

This is not the choice before the House, anyhow. The Solicitor-General is suggesting that we have to choose between the two alternatives presented by the divided Royal Commission. This is not the case. I wish that it were, because what it would imply is that we should be debating here a Bill based firmly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I wish that we were. I wish that the issue before us was whether we accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But that is not what the Solicitor-General is putting to us in his Bill. His Bill is generally inconsistent with the Donovan Report, and, in major respects, it flagrantly contradicts it. No wonder the hon. and learned Gentleman no longer maintains, as he did earlier, that his Bill is based on Donovan.

In the course of the debate, I noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite wriggled and tried to get off the hook on which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and one or two others put them. Very fairly, my hon. Friends asked, why the change from Clause 75 to new Clauses 11 and 12? The best explanations that we had was that some hon. Members on the back benches opposite were sufficiently privileged to have the ear of their right hon. Friend and hon. and learned Friend, and apparently had persuaded them. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Government apparently treat us as a rubber stamp and their own back benchers as a sounding board.

In any event, this does not hold water. The only explanation which carries any weight is that put from this side of the House, that the only thing of significance that has taken place between the presentation of the Bill and the introduction of the new Clauses is that the T.U.C. has shown its hand clearly. It is obvious that the Government are playing a deadly game of poker with the T.U.C., trying to match it card for card. The stakes at the end of the day are the future of the trade unions and our industrial relations. It seems to me, as has been said from this side of the House, that the Government are trying deliberately to frustrate the declared policy of the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said that the Government have made a calculated political decision. In my view, it is one which indicates their attitude towards the T.U.C. They are determined to thwart and outwit the T.U.C. whenever they get the opportunity.

Another element in the approach of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to this problem was exposed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who drifts in. chips in his sixpenn'orth, and drifts out again. I make no apology for saying that in the hon. Gentleman's absence. Once he has made his criticisms, it is difficult to catch him in the House subsequently. He appeared clearly to relish the incentive that he thought that the new Clause provided for the formation of breakaway unions. That seemed to him to be one consequence of the new Clause. It is the fear of the growth of splinter organisations which has been a powerful factor in influencing certain of the white collar unions to demur at a policy of defying registration.

The central theme of the speeches from this side of the House has been that registration is the keystone of the Government's policy. We have had that proudly proclaimed from the Treasury Bench—

Mr. Dudley Smith

The hon. Gentleman is right. But it is not the keystone; it is one of the keystones of the Bill.

Mr. Walker

I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think that my hon. Friends have it right when they say that registration is the keystone of this whole edifice. It is clearly seen as such by the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said that the T.U.C.'s opposition to the Bill focussed on this central point of registration. What is undeniable is that, if registration is seen as crucial to the Government's approach to the trade unions and industrial relations, then anything which contributes towards that structure of registration must be seen in its context. If, therefore, we are opposed to registration in its entirety, equally we must be opposed to it in its parts. This is one of the parts. It is yet another coercion to get the trade unions within the sheep pen of registration in order to make them subordinate and submissive to the Government's general policies. For that reason above all, we are opposed to the new Clauses and the Amendments.

Perhaps I might refer again to this point about the requirements that a union has to satisfy to be eligible for registration. Time and time again, the Solicitor-General has said that the Registrar has only to satisfy himself that an organisation has the right objects. Let me draw his attention to the rule book of my own union, the A.E.F. The Bill does not talk merely of the right objects. Clause 57 refers to …an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description… I wonder what the Registrar will say when he has before him a not untypical rule book such as that of my own union. I do not know whether the order in which objects are laid down in a rule book indicates any priority. In my own union, it does. Object No. 1 of my union is not concerned primarily with the terms and conditions of employment. It says: The objects of the union shall be (a) The control of industry in the interests of the community… Are the Government saying that they intend to give the Registrar power to influence or insist upon the deletion or subordination of such objectives in the rule books of unions?

This is part of our apprehension about the rôle of the Registrar. Unions do not exist only to improve and maintain the living standards of their members. They have longer-term objectives which are much wider. We object to the rôle provided for the Registrar in the Bill and in these new Clauses. For that reason,

we shall oppose them in the Division lobby.

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

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 241.

Division No. 271.]	AYES	[6.28 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Farr, John	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Fell, Anthony	Kinsey, J. R.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kirk, Peter
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Fidler, Michael	Kitson, Timothy
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Astor, John	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Knox, David
Atkins, Humphrey	Fookes, Miss Janet	Lambton, Antony
Awdrey, Daniel	Fortescue, Tim	Lane, David
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Foster, Sir John	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Fowler, Norman	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Balniel, Lord	Fox, Marcus	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Batsford, Brian	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Bell, Ronald	Fry, Peter	Longden, Gilbert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Galbraith, Hn. T, G.	Loveridge, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Gibson-Watt, David	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Benyon, W.	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	McCrindle, R. A.
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McLaren, Martin
Biffen, John	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Blaker, Peter	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Goodhart, Philip	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Body, Richard	Goodhew, Victor	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Boscawen, Robert	Gorst, John	Madel, David
Bossom, Sir Clive	Gower, Raymond	Maginnis, John E.
Bowden, Andrew	Gray, Hamish	Marten, Neil
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Green, Alan	Mather, Carol
Braine, Bernard	Grieve, Percy	Maude, Angus
Bray, Ronald	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mawby, Ray
Brewis, John	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Grylls, Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Gummer, Selwyn	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Gurden, Harold	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Bryan, Paul	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Miscampbell, Norman
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Buck, Antony	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Moate, Roger
Burden, F. A.	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Molyneaux, James
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Haselhurst, Alan	Money, Ernie
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hastings, Stephen	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cary, Sir Robert	Havers, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus
Channon, Paul	Hawkins, Paul	More, Jasper
Chapman, Sydney	Hay, John	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Hayhoe, Barney	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Heseltine, Michael	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Churchill, W. S.	Hicks, Robert	Mudd, David
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Higgins, Terence L.	Murton, Oscar
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hiley, Joseph	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Cockeram, Eric	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Neave, Airey
Cooke, Robert	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Coombs, Derek	Holland, Philip	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Cooper, A. E.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Holt, Miss Mary	Normanton, Tom
Cormack, Patrick	Hordern, Peter	Nott, John
Costain, A. P.	Hornby, Richard	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Critchley, Julian	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Crouch, David	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Osborn, John
Crowder, F. P.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Curran, Charles	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Hunt, John	Percival, Ian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Dean, Paul	James, David	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Dixon, Piers	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Pink, R. Bonner
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Jessel, Toby	Pounder, Rafton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Drayson, G. B.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Prior, Rt, Hn. J. M. L.
Dykes, Hugh	Jopling, Michael	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Eden, Sir John	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Raison, Timothy
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Emery, Peter	Kimball, Marcus	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Eyre, Reginald	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)	Sproat, Iain	Vickers, Dame Joan
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Stainton, Keith	Waddington, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Stanbrook, Ivor	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Steel, David	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	Wall, Patrick
Ridsdale, Julian	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Walters, Dennis
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Ward, Dame Irene
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Stokes, John	Warren, Kenneth
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom	Weatherill, Bernard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Sutcliffe, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rost, Peter	Tapsell, Peter	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Royle, Anthony	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Russell, Sir Ronald	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)	Wiggin, Jerry
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Wilkinson, John
Scott, Nicholas	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Scott-Hopkins, James	Tebbit, Norman	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Sharples, Richard	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)	Woodnutt, Mark
Shelton, William (Clapham)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)	Worsley, Marcus
Simeons, Charles	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Sinclair, Sir George	Trafford, Dr. Anthony	Younger, Hn. George
Skeet, T. H. H.	Trew, Peter
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Tugendhat, Christopher	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Soref, Harold	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.	Mr. Walter Clegg and
Speed, Keith	van Straubenzee, W R.	Mr. Hector Monro.
Spence, John	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
NOES
Abse, Leo	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Allen, Scholefield	Driberg, Tom	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ashley, Jack	Dunnett, Jack	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ashton, Joe	Eadie, Alex	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Atkinson, Norman	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Bagier, Cordon A. T.	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Judd, Frank
Barnes, Michael	Ellis, Tom	Kaufman, Gerald
Barnett, Joel	English, Michael	Kelley, Richard
Beaney, Alan	Evans, Fred	Kerr, Russell
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Kinnock, Neil
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)	Lambie, David
Bidwell, Sydney	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lamond, James
Bishop, E. S.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Latham, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Foot, Michael	Lawson, George
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Ford, Ben	Leadbitter, Ted
Booth, Albert	Forrester, John	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bradley, Tom	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Leonard, Dick
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Freeson, Reginald	Lestor, Miss Joan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Garrett, W. E.	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Ginsburg, David	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Buchan, Norman	Golding, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Lipton, Marcus
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Gourlay, Harry	Lomas, Kenneth
Callaghan, Rt, Hn. James	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Loughlin, Charles
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Grant, John D, (Islington, E.)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Cant, R. B.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	McBride, Neil
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	McCartney, Hugh
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hamling, William	McElhone, Frank
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	McGuire, Michael
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hardy, Peter	Mackenzie, Gregor
Cohen, Stanley	Harper, Joseph	Mackie, John
Coleman, Donald	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mackintosh, John P.
Concannon, J. D.	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Maclennan, Robert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	MacPherson, Malcolm
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Heffer, Eric S.	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Crawshaw, Richard	Horam, John	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudersfield, E.)
Cronin, John	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Marks, Kenneth
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Marquand, David
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)	Huckfield, Leslie	Mason, Rt, Hn. Roy
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Rt, Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Meacher, Michael
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davidson, Arthur	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Mendelson, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Millan, Bruce
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hunter, Adam	Miner, Dr. M. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Janner, Greville	Molloy, William
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Deakins, Eric	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Dempsey, James	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Doig, Peter	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Dormand, J. D.	John, Brynmor	Moyle, Roland

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Roberts, Rt. Hn Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Tinn, James
Murray, R. K.	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Tomney, Frank
Ogden, Eric	Rodcrick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)	Torney, Tom
O'Halloran, Michael	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Tuck, Raphael
O'Malley, Brian	Roper, John	Urwin, T. W.
Oram, Bert	Rose, Paul B.	Wainwright, Edwin
Orbach, Maurice	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Orme, Stanley	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Oswald, Thomas	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Wallace, George
Palmer, Arthur	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Watkins, David
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Sillars, James	Weitzman, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Silverman, Julius	Wellbeloved, James
Pavitt, Laurie	Skinner, Dennis	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Small, William	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Pendry, Tom	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	Whitehead, Phillip
Pentland, Norman	Spearing, Nigel	Whitlock, William
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Springs, Leslie	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prescott, John	Stallard, A. W.	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Price, William (Rugby)	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Probert, Arthur	Stoddart, David (Swindon)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Rankin, John	Strang, Gavin	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rhodes, Geoffrey	Swain, Thomas	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and
Richard, Ivor	Taverne, Dick	Mr. Alan Fitch.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. John Fraser

I beg to move Amendment No. (zzzzz) to the proposed Clause, in line 38, at end add: (6) Cancellation of registration pursuant to this section shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment it will be in order to debate the following:

Amendment (oooo) to new Clause 12, in line 9, at end add: (3) Such cancellation shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.

New Clause 14—"Tax exemptions in respect of benefits".

Mr. Fraser

The Under-Secretary of State in his winding up speech on the last debate said that no financial penalties would be attached to failure to register. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that and the Amendment brings it out. There is a £5 million penalty for failure by trade unions to registar. That £5 million penality arises from the loss of tax exemptions which they will lose if they do not go on to the register.

The Amendment will preserve for trade unions the tax exemptions which they enjoy for their provident funds under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. That was a consolidating Act, and these benefits go back for about a century. So this is not a recent practice. We are not talking about strike funds or the day-to-day activities of a union but something which lies deep in the tradition of the trade union and working class movements—the tradition of self-help, the tradition going back even to the 17th century of the struggle against injustice, deprivation and sheer poverty.

We are talking not of the financing of political action but of sums which provide for pensions and payments to people for sickness, incapacity, injury at work or unemployment, and pensions to people who had no pension other than the pittance paid by fellow union members. We are talking about benefits to widows and children upon the death of a member, contributions towards his funeral expenses and payment for the loss of the tools of his trade. These benefits have traditionally enjoyed exemption from tax of the investment funds which the union operates. This is what would be removed without the Amendment.

This is a financial penalty, for failure to register, of £5 million, and it must not be allowed to go through. One of the reasons for a union registering at all under the 1871 Act was the benefit it got under these provisions. We are talking about the compassionate mutual funds of a union to provide for need, and this would not be a special privilege for unions: these exemptions are exactly the same as are provided for friendly societies, insurance companies and industrial and provident societies. The Government propose to take away these benefits.

The unions do one of two things. Either they hypothecate part of their investments and investment income or they take the amount of benefit which has been paid during the year and claim an income tax rebate for it. Because the 1970 Act repealed the 1871 Act, unless a union registers it will no longer get the exemption. There might even be a gap in the Bill whereby even unions which did register would not get the benefit, because the 1970 Act talks about unions which are registered, and they could only have registered with the Registrar under the 1971 Act. But if there is a gap here, I believe that it is an oversight.

Failure to register under the Bill will deprive a union of tax exemption, and this would be a gross inequity. It would be a penal and savage attack not on the strike funds or other funds but on pensioners, widows and people who suffered from sickness or some other disaster. It would cost unions £5 million a year. It could affect pensions already being paid, because without these exemptions those pensions would have to be lowered in a time of rising costs. It will affect the administration of supplementary benefits. If a union pays unemployment, sickness or accident benefit a man on a very low income will not have to go for supplementation, but without these exemptions people might have to go for supplementation.

6.45 p.m.

Of course the Government may say that the union can get over this by registering, but there is enough compulsion to register already. To add this vicious provision would be totally iniquitous and it is not necessary to penalise those in need in order to achieve the Government's political objectives. There is no case for treating these bodies as leprous organisations to be robbed of these exemptions, to show parliamentary disapproval because their parent organisation is not registered.

The Government have effectively cut off any other means of getting exemption. Unions which were not registered might have been able to protect their funds by registering as friendly societies or in- dustrial and provident societies but for the fact that the Government have cleverly provided that an organisation of workers, not a trade union, may not be a friendly society or an industrial and provident society. So they have ensured that these benefits go only with registration.

Perhaps once or twice I have been uncharitable to the Government. Perhaps they will accept the Amendment. But if they do not they will have set a new high water mark in malice, a new record, a new criteria for vengeance against the dependants of trade unionists as well as the trade unionists themselves.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite have raised this matter, which is very important for the unions. But our previous discussion on the new Clause showed that the Government are being helpful and registering unions automatically, which means that they are covered for all their benefits. So if they opt out of registration they will damage their own provident funds and create difficulties for their own members. They must balance this against registration.

This is one of the reasons why the white-collar unions have said that they must register—because their provident funds will be more hardly hit than those of the manual workers, since they generally pay more benefits—

Mr. Orme

The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Lewis

Of course I know what I am talking about. If the hon. Gentleman waits he may learn something himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least he will learn that I know what I am talking about, if he learns nothing else.

A certain union leader told me not long ago that the large manual workers' unions—I do not like this term, but it has been used by hon. Members opposite to differentiate these unions from the white-collar unions—do not intend to extend their provident funds. He told me that the unions take the view that the State should provide those services, and that the trade unions no longer wish to expand their pension, sickness, unemployment and other schemes. I regret that, because I think that the British trade union movement would do itself a great deal of good if it were to expand these activities and if, say, in co-operation with the employers it increased the pensions paid to members.

Hon. Members opposite may like to know from me that the engineering union pays a very small pension to its members, though it has recently increased it by a good percentage. Superannuated members used to get about 10s. or 12s., but that has now gone up to either 15s. or 17s. The railway unions pay even less. Such provident pensions are derisory but they have been kept low over the years because the unions have not expanded in this sphere. Therefore, when hon. Members complain that registration will damage those funds it can be fairly said that the unions themselves have not done very much to assist their members by developing the benefits those members might have been happy to have.

Another good reason why they should expand is that at the moment the unions are almost wholly concerned with negotiating wages. The expansion of which I speak would give them another negotiating objective vis-à-vis the employers. There would be a good deal of sense in unions discussing with employers possibilities of increasing benefits other than wages, whether in the form of longer holidays, or pension and sickness benefits, or in other forms. The State sickness benefits are certainly low, but sick members receive even less from their trade unions. If workpeople are to have security it must be security that goes beyond wages, so that they are looked after when, perforce they have to stay away from work for sickness and, on retirement, may have an addition to the State pension. I can see a good deal of advantage in co-operation between unions and employers in increasing benefits of this kind.

If the unions register, or remain on the register—do not opt out—they will not only be able to retain the present income tax advantages accruing to the benefit of their funds but can add to those advantages and, if they so wish, can increase their funds and the benefits flowing from them. I have been rather surprised that hon. Members opposite should complain about having to opt out of the legislation, because trade union members have to opt out of the political levy, if that is their wish.

We have been told that the Government are very wickedly trying to split the trade unions, but there is more precept than example in that accusation because the trade unions in collecting the political levy force upon their own members the obligation to opt out, otherwise the levy must be paid. The Government are doing precisely the same in respect of registration. There must be a physical act of coming out of registration just as there is a physical act of coming out of the political levy. Unions can retain their benefits if they retain their registration.

Mr. Heffer

A member is told at the union branch when he joins that he can refuse to pay the political levy. If he does so, the form is given to him there and then. That is done on an individual basis, and how it can be equated with what is done on an organisation basis I do not understand.

Mr. Lewis

It is very easy to equate, because the Registrar will be in touch with all the unions once they are on the provisional register. So they will get forms of one kind or another. The secretary of every union will have on his desk some document which will enable him to decide whether or not to go in.

In an earlier debate on registration, a ballot was mentioned. I should have thought that the whole question of provident funds provided an additional reason for having a ballot. If unions are to opt out of registration they must clearly indicate to their members what will be the cost to them in terms of the effect on benefits or on the funds backing those benefits. In those circumstances it will be necessary to give members full information and, union members seeing the disadvantages accruing to them by lack of registration, I cannot imagine that there would be other than a majority who would want registration.

In other words it is not acceptable that the general secretary of a trade union, or his committee, should make a judgment without informing the members and giving them full details of all the financial implications. If union leaders provided members with a full indication of those implications, I am sure that a ballot would come out in favour of registration. If, on the other hand, a trade union leader were to seek to deregister by the back door, without asking his members, there would be a grave responsibility on him in taking action affecting the members' individual funds without getting the members' permission to do so.

I support the new Clause. I do not accept the Amendment, because it is permissive. There is no obligation on unions to put their funds at jeopardy. They need not do so, provided they do not retain a dogmatic attitude to the Bill. When they register under this Measure their funds will be fully protected, and can increase. The unions can continue to develop their provident funds for the benefit of their members.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Orme

The major craft unions and unions with a craft basis will, in the main, be the hardest hit by these proposals. These organisations have established their own system of social security benefits over the years, which run parallel to, but are in no way designed to replace, the equivalent benefits paid by the State. The more modern unions tend to concentrate on the trade union aspects of their work rather than on providing all-round social benefits.

We are discussing benefits which, because the subscriptions are small, cannot be large. Nevertheless, considerable sums of money are involved. It is almost as though the Secretary of State is setting out to create bitterness between himself and the trade union movement, whose funds will be put in jeopardy by the vindictiveness of the Government.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the funds but the tax advantage which enable those funds to accrue that will be in jeopardy?

Mr. Orme

That is only a refinement of what I said. If my union, the A.U.E.W., whose policy is not to register under these proposals, is faced with this difficulty, it will have to look seriously at redefining its entire membership and subscription set-up.

It is interesting to note that the so-called defenders of widows, orphans and the sick on the benches opposite are not in evidence today. They are the very people—the low wage earners, the unemployed and the sick—who will be primarily affected. I see these people when I attend my trade union branch meetings, which I try to do once a fortnight or certainly whenever possible. I take the chair and I see 30 or more superannuated members and those who act as visitors and take the money to other recipients.

I see these things going on around me and I am made aware of the bitterness that the Government are creating by these proposals. Somebody might be sick or perhaps a member has lost his tools or has had them stolen and is claiming a grant for new tools. It is a microcosm of the Welfare State. Naturally it cannot rival or replace the Welfare State, but it operates parallel to it.

I appreciate that the major social benefits must be paid by society as a whole. Nevertheless, the unions with which we are concerned succour those in need, including the unemployed. These benefits act as a supplement to those given by the State. The T.U.C. has estimated that £5 million will be in jeopardy by the removal of this tax exemption. This is deplorable.

Members of my union have a choice open to them. Apprentices can pay a small subscription and qualify for limited benefits. When they become fully fledged craftsmen they can either go into what we call Section 1 and qualify for total benefits, including superannuation, or they can go into Section 5 and become just industrial members, but still with full status. The same applies to women members who wish to make subscriptions.

In a union of 1,300,000 members people are coming into and leaving the industry all the time. Some members of my union are so closely associated with the organisation that even when leaving the industry they take what we term outer trade section membership, which enables them to continue to make subscriptions and maintain their right to superannuation at a later date. Often, purely out of affinity, they remain members of the union, though many of them will probably never return to the trade with which the union is primarily concerned.

This is another way in which this wretched Bill will reduce democracy in the trade union movement. As I say, £5 million which is paid in benefits, on a justifiable and equitable basis—as equitable as any friendly society—will be in jeopardly simply because the Government are adopting a suggestion in the minority report of the Donovan Commission which thought that this might be an inducement to get unions to register.

Donovan also pointed out that 85 per cent. of trade unions opted voluntarily for registration under the 1871 Act. That was done without any coercion or persuasion. Now we are to have compulsory registration, with unions being forced to contract out if they do not wish to be registered. But if they do that, they will lose their schemes for social security benefits, which means that the Bill hits hardest at those who are least able to bear the burden.

I warn the Minister that while he may be able to hurt these people, force trade unions to change their rules and force them to become industrial organisations unable to give the sort of benefits of which I have spoken—apart from strike benefits and membership rights—at the end of the day he will not win. He will leave behind a legacy of bitterness.

Mr. R. Carr

I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were going to do the sort of things he has been suggesting I certainly would not win. I would not deserve to win. But, then, I am not trying to do those things.

Mr. Orme

In that case, why not accept our Amendment to the proposed Clause, which would avoid any difficulty? If he is not trying to do the things I have accused him of doing, why not leave the position as it is?

Mr. Tom King

The hon. Gentleman is implying that everything will be lost and that the Bill will be a big minus to the unions. Has he made an estimate of the extra revenue that may accrue to unions from agency shop contributions?

Mr. Orme

A later Amendment appears on that subject and I hope to have time to discuss it.

Mr. Tom King

Answer my question.

Mr. Orme

I do not want to be sidetracked on to that issue, with which I will willingly deal if there is time later.

I want to make it clear that we are not speaking now about union contributions but about benefits. In jeopardy will be the social security benefits which members of unions now get. Many of these people have been paying for these benefits for years. It will be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to convince them that something other than vindictiveness has induced the Government to introduce the new Clause.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

I was glad that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) cleared up a point on Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, which was puzzling me. That was the definition of "provident benefits". Under one reading of subsection (2), one might assume that strike pay could be paid. The phrase is …or while out of work… That is not identifying the cause why the member was out of work. But he has assured me that this is not the case and that this is an entirely separate fund, separate from the working income and the working funds of the union, and, therefore, should be treated differently.

Plenty of financial penalties will arise from non-registration which will impinge upon the working income and working capital. For example, under the Friendly Societies Act it is possible at present to transfer property without stamp and without paying capital gains tax or anything of that sort. That will go under the new system if the trade union does not register. I support that decision. But when we come to the separate fund—for such it is or should be, and I believe it to be—of the provident benefits, the privilege of tax exemption should be available. It can be made available only if the body is identified clearly—otherwise it will become an abuse—and if it is registered in some way. It is essential if there is to be a tax exemption of the type required—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is a lawyer's argument."] It is a commonsense argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will find that I am not as unsympathetic to his case as he might think. It has to be identified. If it is merely a loose organisation of workers, obviously there will be abuse. Under the present law, an unregistered trade union does not have the advantage of Section 338 of the Act of 1970. This is because, in order to get such an advantage, obviously it must be clear and approved, and clear and approved in advance.

Under Clause 141 a trade union as such cannot any longer register as a friendly society. That I support. It would be quite wrong for an organisation of masters and men, to use the old and outmoded phrase, to be able to register in future either as a friendly society or as a company, as many of them have in the past. But surely those trade unions which have these funds and wish to continue, as it were, to write insurance in the future, in the way movingly described by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), can set up a separate friendly society. What is wrong with that? They could set up a friendly society with the objectives of a provident or a friendly society, as the case may be. It could have the same personnel, no doubt, as its trustees. It could hive off its existing funds and it could carry on with the extremely good work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

I should have thought that any union which does not choose to register—foolishly, in my opinion, but it is not my opinion which matters—and thereby incurs all sorts of other financial detriments, such as I have mentioned earlier, nevertheless need not incur them because it can erect a friendly society devoted entirely to this object, but identified in people's minds and probably in other ways by having as its officers the former and existing members or officers of the trade union concerned. I see no legal objection to that. If they did that, the sting of what is an unworthy attack upon the compassion of the Conservative Party entirely disappears.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson

I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I appreciate the purpose of his comments. I am grateful for them. It is not quite as simple as he suggests, in view of Clause 63. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at Clause 63, I should like to have his learned opinion on the matter. The Clause suggests that any organisation which is not in control of its property or funds is not a trade union in this sense. Therefore, it cannot hive off, in the way that he suggests, its property and funds into a specially sponsored friendly society for the purpose of registering that society, because it defeats its objective—except that it is argued that the union is not registered and, therefore, that part of Clause 63 does not apply to it.

The next stage is that to preserve its tax position, it is the federation business which enables the trade union to escape the penalties. In the case, for instance, of the A.U.E.W., it is held at present that its rule is a federation of rules. It is not a single union from 1st January, 1971, but a federation of four trade unions. The rules governing each section that now constitute the A.U.E.W. are a federation of rules. They have never been brought together. The amalgamation has never taken place. Therefore, in the sense that the Bill refers to a federation of trade unions, the A.U.E.W. is a federation, and it could be argued that as a federation, because it is not required to register, that federation could be acceptable under the terms of friendly societies or under the terms of the law governing friendly societies' investment and tax rebates.

Similarly, the Transport and General Workers' Union has just concluded negotiations to come together with the Scottish Motormen. Legally, I understand that when those rules are brought together, that will be a federation of two unions, a small one and the large union of the Transport and General Workers. For the purpose of the Bill, on the question of registration as a friendly society, it is a federation. Therefore, because of the federated rules which govern its property and funds, it may be possible to continue its registration as a friendly society.

If we fully understand the importance of what the hon. and learned Member for Darwen is saying and apply it to Clause 63 and look at the whole question of federated rules, we shall see that most trade unions are amalgams of some sort and, therefore, have federated arrangements, and that it is possible for them to register under those terms and still continue to claim income tax rebates, and so on, as federated groups.

The second way is for the T.U.C. to set up a provident fund to which affiliated trade unions could transfer their property on a temporary basis. It is not beyond the wit of lawyers and accountants to devise a mechanism to enable trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. to continue to derive benefit from registration as friendly societies and to get round this particular provision. I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I take it that these are possibilities. I am canvassing the possibilities because it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has said, they are pursuing a vendetta against organised workers. It would be contradictory to that vendetta if the Government conceded this Amendment. We cannot expect that the Amendment will be accepted, and it will, therefore, be necessary for trade unions to take legal advice and accountancy advice in setting up structures to enable them to maintain their position in terms of income tax rebate.

The figure suggested by the T.U.C. is £5 million, but I believe the total is far higher than that. Most trade unions are deriving considerable sums from renting parts of newly-built property. The A.U.E.W. has long since discontinued using its funds to enable members to buy their own houses. It now puts all its available money into the building of new premises, most of which are rented out to other organisations. That is the income which enables the union to supplement its superannuation fund.

Mention was made of the smallness of the benefit. That is true, but the contribution is very small. It is 4p per week. That is all a section 1 member pays for superannuation benefit, and he may derive from it 16s. per week for many years—

Mr. Orme

Up to £1.

Mr. Atkinson

The average is up to £1, but he gets that for 4p per week contribution. That is a better transaction than most insurance societies and even the Government scheme offer in terms of a return. That is dependent upon the income tax rebate and on the rent return.

The Transport and General Workers Union puts its tax rebates and benefits under this Section of the 1970 Act as £750,000 a year. That is a lot of money. If that is so for the T. & G.W., the total amount for all the affiliated unions will he much more than £5 million. Even if the Government refuse to concede this point about income tax rebates, all is not lost. It is possible for legal advisers and accountants to set up organisations which are capable of escaping from the penalties which appear to be imposed by the Bill.

Mr. R. Carr

In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I said that if the Government were trying to do the things of which they are accused they would not win and would not deserve to win, and they are not trying to do them. I resist these Amendments only because they are not necessary. The charges levelled against the Government in the opening speeches were either based on ignorance—which I certainly hope—or on hypocrisy and misrepresentation of a kind which I find nauseating. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was much fairer in his appraisal of the situation.

Of course we are not penalising widows, pensioners and other people who receive benefit on compassionate grounds from provident funds. It is long-established common practice to tie tax concessions for provident benefit activities to registration, so that there is a check—and surely there must be a check—on the organisation's financial worthiness and a general continuing check on its financial state of affairs. That is a principle which we must maintain.

We offer unions two ways of meeting that requirement. First, they should register as a trade union as proposed under the Bill. That is not only in the public interest, it is easy, and we do not regard it as oppressive. It is much less oppressive than the method of registration originally put forward by the Labour Government. We believe that registration brings considerable benefits. We do not regard it as oppressive to say that that is one way in which trade unions can obtain the continuance of their provident fund activities with full tax exemption. If—misguidedly as we believe, and unnecessarily misguidedly—a union chooses to cancel its registration, there is nothing to stop it hiving off its provident funds, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, into separate organisations, registering them as friendly societies and thereby achieving the present degree of registration which we believe to be the minimum required for provident fund activities for the long-term protection of the beneficiaries.

This is a fuss over nothing. There are two perfectly legitimate ways of meeting this requirement. There is the existing one of registering a provident society, in which case it is necessary to form a provident society, and registering as a trade union and, as a registered trade union, getting an exemption as at the moment. Both these ways achieve the proper exemption which the Government wish to be available for the beneficiaries of genuine provident funds.

Mr. Atkinson

Has the right hon. Gentleman read and closely studied the remarks of the Solicitor-General on the fifth allotted day when at the end of the debate he spoke in great detail about registration and went on to say why he thought it was not possible, without changes being made, for a trade union to register as a friendly society?

Mr. Carr

I take that point. It is not possible, as I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen said, for a trade union also to register as a friendly society. It is possible for a union which decides not to register under the Bill but to remain an unregistered organisation of workers to hive off its provident funds and to form a friendly society. I do not think the House would wish me to go into details, but I have sought careful advice and any fears the hon. Gentleman has on those grounds are unfounded. There is no obstacle to forming a friendly society and dealing with the matter in that way.

Mr. John Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a separate endowment fund used for the payment of benefits. What happens in practice is that some trade unions do not have a separate capital fund but make an income tax claim at the end of the financial year in respect of the benefits which they have actually paid out. It is not, therefore, possible to transfer the assets, because the assets are not in a separate fund in the first place. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 1871 Act does not require the perusal and auditing of accounts of a registered trade union, and that that privilege has been in existence for 100 years? If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about the accountancy aspect, that can be dealt with by a separate Amendment to the effect that the funds should be audited. Neither of his arguments carries a great deal of weight.

Mr. Carr

I do not pretend to be technical on the subject of provident funds, but if a provident fund were not separated from the general fund I should have thought, as a normal, commonsense view, it ought to be and the sooner it is separated, the better. Otherwise, if it is all part of the general capital fund, what would prevent a union engaged in a protracted industrial dispute—I do not for a moment believe that unions would deliberately act irresponsibly, but I pose the question—using up money which had been put aside for provident purposes in order to fight that industrial dispute? That would not be proper in the interests of beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. I am not suggesting that that happens, but I am pointing out that there cannot be any hardship or insuperable difficulty—and I think it absolutely right in principle—in separately identifying the funds devoted to the provident purposes of the union.

In another context, Clause 139 of the Bill encourages the separation of funds. If they do not do it already for what I regard as that good and beneficial reason, I am sure that unions will wish to separate these funds because, if a union becomes liable for compensation, quite rightly and properly, one must give it power to separate its industrial fighting fund, so to speak, and thus make immune from possible loss through compensation payments the amount of money which is devoted to provident purposes. It would be wrong if the Bill did not give unions the opportunity to separate out their provident funds for that purpose as well.

I assure the House that the pensions of widows and all the other beneficiaries are perfectly easily protectable under the Bill if it is enacted in its present form.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Castle

That rather complacent speech from the Secretary of State is typical of the Government's attitude throughout. Under the Bill as it stands, trade unions will suffer financial penalties by losing the tax exemption for a side of their activities which has nothing whatever to do with their negotiating work. I am interested to see that the right hon. Gentleman rejects the approach of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), who, I thought, believed that he was interpreting the Government's mind when he said that it was quite right that a union which was wicked enough not to register under the Bill should lose tax benefits in respect of all its work.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is the faithful mirror of what most Tories think they will get out of the Bill. We had a revelation of the grassroots attitude when, admonishing the trade unions, he said, "What are they grumbling about? They need not put their funds in jeopardy if they do not adopt a dogmatic attitude to the Bill". That is the pure doctrine of the "State licence to operate" concept which permeates the Bill.

It was, therefore, a refreshing relief to hear the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) approach the matter in a more objective way and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) that we were dealing here with quite separate types of activity on the part of trade unions which, said he, should be treated differently. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least had the grace and courtesy to recognise that, if a union engages in what are near-charitable activities, it ought to have the appropriate tax treatment in respect of those activities.

Our complaint is that, contrary to what the Secretary of State says, the Bill does not reflect that principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite simple, and that all a union had to do was to set up a separate friendly society fund. But that, to put it at its lightest, would be inconvenient.

Yesterday, we had a long debate about how one should treat professional associations which, it was argued, had a dual nature and dual capacity. It was important, we were told, that the Bill should lean over backwards so to adjust the law as to enable those professional bodies to exercise their two different functions without inconvenience. We were told that there were organisations in this country, limited companies or chartered bodies, which engaged in both negotiating activities and what hon. Members opposite clearly seemed to think were more reputable activities, namely, educational work or activity coming under the vague formula, the public good, associated with the chartered body.

Because it was difficult for such bodies to carry on those two activities under the Bill with proper protection and immunity, the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce three complicated new Clauses setting up a special register. When it was said that the special register would apply to a body which was already a limited company as well as having negotiating activities but that it should not apply to a limited company in the future, and when we asked what was the distinction in principle, and why should not the B.M.A. be told to reorganise its affairs so as to cease to be a limited company the Solicitor-General's answer was that it would cause inconvenience to the B.M.A.

We have here an absolutely parallel situation. We are not talking about the negotiating side of a trade union's work. We are talking about its provident and benefit side, its charitable work.

Mr. R. Carr

I think that the right hon. Lady is pursuing a misconceived argument. What the Government were saying yesterday was not that the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing and so on could go on pursuing all their industrial relations activities, with all their present privileges, without registering. We said, "If you want to do that, you must register, and we are here making it possible for you to register". To some extent, we are making the British Medical Association, for example, reorganise its affairs. If it wants to continue doing what it is doing at the moment, it will have to register, for otherwise it will not have its present protections.

What we say to the unions in this case is this: "If you register, you do nothing; you just go on as you do at the moment. If, on the other hand, you wish not to register, you must separate this off and make it a friendly society".

Mrs. Castle

What the right hon. Gentleman said to the B.M.A. was, "We will provide a special form of registration under the Bill that will enable you to continue your activities without the inconvenience of rearranging them." Our Amendment asks for exactly the same thing on behalf of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that to enjoy tax exemptions for their provident benefit fund unions must be registered in some form or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood suggested that there were other ways of controlling those funds so that there was no abuse, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has established that that is unavoidable. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that such tax exemptions must be tied to registration, we have offered him a form of registration in the Amendment, namely, that they should be tied to those unions which register under the 1871 Act. That can be called a special register, purely for the provident benefit funds of trade unions.

It is a little revealing that the right hon. Gentleman sees no difficulty in having special registers for special groups of professional people but refuses to allow the continuation of registration under the 1871 Act as the qualification for this side of the unions' activities alone.

We are not at this stage arguing about whether unions are right to say that they will not register under the Bill. It is outrageous to ask them to register. The House knows our views, and I will not repeat them.

The hon. and learned Member for Darwen and the right hon. Gentleman both said that it is right to say that the provident benefit activities, the friendly society activities, of trade unions are different from their negotiating activities and should be treated differently. If that is the principle, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to find a way for it to be embodied in the Bill, and not tell the trade unions, "It is simple for you. Either you register—and if you are sensible you will—or you must reorganise your affairs into a separate friendly society fund." That is financial blackmail of the trade unions. There can be no other phrase for it, because they are being told, "Unless you do that you face the loss of millions of pounds of revenue. You must do the adjusting. I am not prepared to adjust my Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman gives us the principle, he must give us the means by a device in the Bill, just as yesterday he gave the means to the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing, the chartered engineers and the rest. If he does not give the means there will be two types of treatment in his approach for two different types of people.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispel what he clearly considers to be outrageous misrepresentations by us about his motives and methods, we once again offer him a very simple way to prove his good will and his good faith in the matter. He admits that it is outrageous if trade unions have to lose these tax exemptions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

The right hon. Lady knows that what she is saying is absolute rubbish. The situation clearly is that the special groups we talked about yesterday in connection with the special register must register none the less. The special register was created simply for activities that were not concerned with funds which dealt with sickness benefits, pensions and the like but were quite separate. Those groups must register just the same. Is the right hon. Lady saying that if we had another kind of register, but still a register under the Bill, giving it a different name, she would advise all the trade unions to register under it? They have still the option.

Mrs. Castle

I do not want an intervention by the hon. Gentleman to turn into a speech. I leave the House to judge whether it is I or the hon. Gentleman who is talking nonsense. When it is said that the B.M.A. must register, my answer is, "Yes, certainly. But it does not have to register on the same register as trade unions. It must register on a special register set up to help it through the difficulties caused by its dual capacity." In the Amendment we are asking not that the unions should not register to get the tax exemptions for their friendly society funds but that, like the B.M.A., they should not have to register on the main register but should register under the 1871 Act, purely for the purpose of drawing the tax exemption for their provident benefit funds. The parallel between my argument and the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the B.M.A. is exact. If he wishes to dispel the deep-rooted belief that there is discrimination here in his whole instinctive approach against the trade unions, he has a very simple way of doing it. He can accept our Amendment and create for trades union friendly society funds a special register.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Chertsey)

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has made a lot of fuss about the inconvenience of the alternative method of looking after the provident funds of the unions. She is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is clear that the unions have two avenues. If they do not choose to take the avenue of registration, they have the other avenue, and so the provident funds are absolutely secure. If they wish to take the more difficult avenue and not to register, that is entirely a decision of their own making. The inconvenience about which the right hon. Lady talked is created not by the Government in the Bill but by the trade unions which decide to take that path.

I have been astounded by all the claims about worries over registration. Labour right hon. and hon. Members, claiming to represent unions—in some instances, by suggestion, claiming to represent many millions of members, I think falsely—say that some of the unions will shrink from registration. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that his union would shrink from it. I cannot understand what they are frightened about.

The unions, as regards tax concessions, are in no different position from a company under the Companies Act, 1948. For example, I.C.I. does not find itself hindered because its articles of association have to be examined by the Registrar of Companies. It is right that unions asking for the same privileges should see that their rules are examined in a similar way.

The provision has been called a method of taking away £5 million from the trade unions. It should be made clear that there is no question of that. My right hon. Friend said that the unions have an absolute protection either by registration or by hiving off. Surely, it is a cardinal rule that a person or company claiming taxation relief should have to comply with certain regulations to enjoy that privilege. All that the Government are asking the unions and other organisations to do is to submit to the perfectly fair and reasonable requirements of the Bill if they wish to have their funds protected in the way which we think is right. It is perfectly proper that there should be public checks of such funds.

Rather than being a threat to the unions, the provision is the reverse. A good case could be made out for saying that this is a way of protecting the funds. The rules can take care of that, by seeing that they can be examined.

There are advantages in registration, not least the tax advantage. The unions have nothing to lose but everything to gain by registration. Labour hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot talk at one moment about the unions losing £5 million, and a so-called threat to the provident funds, and then say that they have nothing to gain by registration. They have everything to gain by registration under the Bill. But if they do not choose to register they can protect their provident funds adequately in the other way suggested, by hiving them off.

Mr. R. Carr

With the leave of the House, I should like to say a very few words more. I want to avoid misunderstanding between the two sides of the House on this problem, which is quite separate from our main controversies about industrial relations.

The right hon. Lady drew a comparison between the Government's action yesterday in relation to a special register for certain bodies and our action today. We proposed a special register for them because there was no other way in which they could register and continue the industrial relations part of their activities with the protection they now enjoy. If we had not provided it they would have had to choose between continuing one part of their activities—industrial relations—and giving up the others, and holding to the others and giving up their traditional industrial relations activities. That did not seem either necessary or fair, so we provided them with the means of registering. But the registration is no easier. Such bodies still have to satisfy the principles laid down in Clause 61 and to satisfy the Registrar that they have rules on all the items laid down in Schedule 3. I proposed that special register only because, it was necessary.

I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register. But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty. I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense. Therefore, there is a special register in existence.

Mr. Orme

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the problems that a trade union will have, run as it is in the main by thousands of voluntary workers, in splitting the two funds and administering them separately for perhaps 1,300,000 members, some entitled to payments and some not? It is a job of such magnitude that it will be almost impossible to administer.

Mr. Carr

That is a matter about which we can no doubt argue, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the position. I believe that, one way or the other, the provident funds of unions should be separately identifiable and separately accountable for, and if they are not so already, then it is right that they should become so in future.

Mr. Atkinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is correcting the Solicitor-General in the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman made earlier? I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is returning because he can listen to my question. I remind the Solicitor-General that, in answer to me, he confirmed that an unregistered union would not be able to take benefit from various Acts in order to seek tax rebates as a result of investment of its provident funds. As reported in HANSARD of 10th February, he spelt out clearly that unregistered unions could not derive benefit in the way which the Secretary of State now suggests. I take it that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have put their heads together and that the Secretary of State is correcting what the Solicitor-General said earlier.

Mr. Carr

I do not believe that it is a correction. If my hon. and learned Friend thinks that I am confirming wrongly, I am sure that he will not fail to say so. A trade union, an organisation of workers, as such cannot do the things my hon. and learned Friend say they cannot do. I repeat that they can hive off their provident funds and activities and get the protection of the tax exemptions they enjoy at the moment.

Mrs. Castle

We have before had statements by the Solicitor-General which later have either had to be corrected or, alternatively, endorsed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions, which are profoundly concerned about this matter, have studied what was said by the Solicitor-General on 10th February as reported in columns 659 and 660 of HANSARD of that date, and have received advice that it was both the intention of the Government that they should cease to enjoy friendly society benefits and that they would de facto so cease. The Solicitor-General concluded on that occasion: Under the 1871 Act, registration enables a trade union to enjoy the benefits of a friendly society in respect of provident funds, while registration under the Bill would carry the same consequences, but it would not be admissible for an unregistered organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 660.] That was the policy stand of the Solicitor-General, and now the Secretary of State says that we are making a lot of fuss about what is a completely innocent purpose of the Government. He says that they would not dream of making sure that provident funds ceased to enjoy tax exemptions. The Government are again talking with a double voice and the House is again being misled.

Mr. Carr

Since we are being accused of misleading the House, I must again try to make clear that we are not. What my hon. and learned Friend said in the context of that debate, and what I repeat today, is that an unregistered organisation as such cannot do the things which my hon. and learned Friend said that it cannot do. In that, he was quite right and I confirm it. But there is nothing to prevent the unregistered organisation from doing what I have suggested—hiving off its provident funds and activities and registering under one of the Acts provided for such activities—if it gives them any pleasure, I remind hon. Members opposite that both these Acts were passed by the Labour Government—and also enjoying the benefits which they enjoy at the moment. Under those Acts, there is still tax exemption available and all these organisations have to do is take advantage of them.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson

It is not as easy as that. What the Solicitor-General was doing on 10th February was confirming the claim I had made that non-registration would collectively cost the trade unions more

than £5 million. The hon. and learned Gentleman said then, "It is too bad; that is the cost of non-registration." He went on to spell out in detail the reasons why unregistered unions would not be able to take the benefits from the investment of their provident funds. He said, "It is too bad; that is the price which unregistered unions must pay." We are glad to hear that the Secretary of State has corrected that and has put the Solicitor-General right, and that therefore we can perhaps pass on to other provisions.

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

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 287.

Division No. 272.]	AYES	[8.1 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Allen, Scholefield	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Driberg, Tom	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Duffy, A. E. P.	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ashley, Jack	Dunnett, Jack	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ashton, Joe	Eadie, Alex	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Atkinson, Norman	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Judd, Frank
Barnes, Michael	Ellis, Tom	Kaufman, Gerald
Barnett, Joel	English, Michael	Kelley, Richard
Beaney, Alan	Evans, Fred	Kerr, Russell
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Kinnock, Neil
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)	Lambie, David
Bidwell, Sydney	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lamond, James
Bishop, E. S.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Latham, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Foot, Michael	Lawson, George
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Ford, Ben	Leadbitter, Ted
Booth, Albert	Forrester, John	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Leonard, Dick
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Freeson, Reginald	Lestor, Miss Joan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Garrett, W. E.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Buchan, Norman	Ginsburg, David	Lipton, Marcus
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Golding, John	Lomas, Kenneth
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Loughlin, Charles
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Gourlay, Harry	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Cant, R. B.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Carmichael, Neil	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	McBride, Neil
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	McCartney, Hugh
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hamilton, William(Fife, W.)	McElhone, Frank
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	McGuire, Michael
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hardy, Peter
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Harper, Joseph	Mackenzie, Gregor
Cohen, Stanley	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mackie, John
Concannon, J. D.	Hart, At. Hn. Judith	Mackintosh, John P.
Conlan, Bernard	Hattersley, Roy	Maclennan, Robert
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	MacPherson, Malcolm
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Heffer, Eric S.	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hooson, Emlyn	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Cronin, John	Horam, John	Marks, Kenneth
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Marquand, David
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Dalyell, Tam	Huckfield, Leslie	Meacher, Michael
Darling, Rt Hn. George	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davidson, Arthur	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Mendelson, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Mikardo, Ian
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Millan, Bruce
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hunter, Adam	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Janner, Greville	Molloy, William
Deakins, Eric	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras, S.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Dempsey, James	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Doig, Peter	John, Brynmor	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Dormark, J. D.	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Moyle, Roland	Richard, Ivor	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Tinn, James
Murray, Ronald King	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Tomney, Frank
Ogden, Eric	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Torney, Tom
O'Halloran, Michael	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)	Tuck, Raphael
O'Malley, Brian	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Urwin, T. W.
Oram, Bert	Roper, John	Wainwright, Edwin
Orbach, Maurice	Rose, Paul B.	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Orme, Stanley	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Oswald, Thomas	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Wallace, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Watkins, David
Palmer, Arthur	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Weitzman, David
Pardoe, John	Sillars, James	Wellbeloved, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Silverman, Julius	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Skinner, Dennis	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Pavitt, Laurie	Small, William	Whitehead, Phillip
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)	Whitlock, William
Pendry, Tom	Spriggs, Leslie	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pentland, Norman	Stallard, A. W.	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Steel, David	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Prescott, John	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Price, William (Rugby)	Strang, Gavin	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Probert, Arthur	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Rankin, John	Swain, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Taverne, Dick	Mr. William Hamling and
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)	Mr. Donald Coleman.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
NOES
Adley, Robert	Critchley, Julian	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Crouch, David	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Crowder, F. P.	Haselhurst, Alan
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Curran, Charles	Hastings, Stephen
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Havers, Michael
Astor, John	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James MaJ.-Gen.	Hawkins, Paul
Atkins, Humphrey	Dean, Paul	Hay, John
Awdry, Daniel	Dixon, Piers	Hayhoe, Barney
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Heseltine, Michael
Balniel, Lord	Drayson, G. B.	Hicks, Robert
Batsford, Brian	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Higgins, Terence L.
Bell, Ronald	Dykes, Hugh	Hiley, Joseph
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Eden, Sir John	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Benyon, W.	Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)	Holland, Philip
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Holt, Miss Mary
Biffen, John	Emery, Peter	Hornby, Richard
Biggs-Davison, John	Eyre, Reginald	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Blaker, Peter	Farr, John	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Fell, Anthony	Howell, David (Guildford)
Body, Richard	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Boscawen, Robert	Fidler, Michael	Hunt, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bowden, Andrew	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Iremonger, T. L.
Braine, Bernard	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	James, David
Bray, Ronald	Fookes, Miss Janet	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Brewis, John	Fortescue, Tim	Jessel, Toby
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Foster, Sir John	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fowler, Norman	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Fox, Marcus	Jopling, Michael
Bryan, Paul	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N & M)	Fry, Peter	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Buck, Antony	Calbraith, Hn. T. G.	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Bullus, Sir Eric	Gardner, Edward	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Burden, F. A.	Gibson-Watt, David	Kimball, Marcus
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Cary, Sir Robert	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Kinsey, J. R.
Channon, Paul	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Kirk, Peter
Chapman, Sydney	Goodhart, Philip	Kitson, Timothy
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Gorst, John	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Chichester-Clark, R.	Gower, Raymond	Knox, David
Churchill, W. S.	Gray, Hamish	Lambton, Antony
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Green, Alan	Lane, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Grieve, Percy	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Cockeram, Eric	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Cooke, Robert	Grylls, Michael	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Coombs, Derek	Gummer, Selwyn	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Cooper, A. E.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Longden, Gilbert
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Loveridge, John
Cormack, Patrick	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Costain, A. P.	Hannam, John (Exeter)	McCrindle, R. A.

McLaren, Martin	Pounder, Rafton	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Sutcliffe, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Tapseil, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Madel, David	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Taylor Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Maginnis, John E.	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Marten, Neil	Raison, Timothy	Tebbit, Norman
Mather, Carol	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Maude, Angus	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Thomas, John Stradlmg (Monmouth)
Mawby, Ray	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Tilney, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Trafford, Dr Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Trew, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Tugendhat, Christopher
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Ridsdale, Julian	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Moate, Roger	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Moryneaux, James	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Money, Ernie	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Waddington, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie	Rost, Peter	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Monroe, Hector	Royle, Anthony	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Montgomery, Fergus	Russell, Sir Ronald	Wall, Patrick
More, Jasper	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Walters, Dennis
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Scott, Nicholas	Ward, Dame Irene
		Warren, Kenneth
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Scott-Hopkins, James	Weatherill, Bernard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Sharples, Richard	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mudd, David	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	White, Roger (Gravesend)
Murton, Oscar	Shelton, William (Clapham)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Simeons, Charles	Wiggin, Jerry
Neave, Airey	Sinclair, Sir George	Wilkinson, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Sheet, T. H. H.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Normanton, Tom	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Nott, John	Soref, Harold	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Speed, Keith	Woodnutt, Mark
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Spence, John	Worsley, Marcus
Osborn, John	Sproat, Iain	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Stainton, Keith	Younger, Hn. George
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Percival, Ian	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Pike, Miss Mervyn	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.	Mr. Walter Clegg.
Pink, R. Bonner	Stokes, John

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

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 237.

Division No. 273.]	AYES	[8.13 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)	Eden, Sir John
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Buck, Antony	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bullus, Sir Eric	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Burden, F. A.	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Emery, Peter
Astor, John	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Eyre, Reginald
Atkins, Humphrey	Cary, Sir Robert	Farr, John
Awdry, Daniel	Chapman, Sydney	Fell, Anthony
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Chichester-Clark, R.	Fidler, Michael
Balniel, Lord	Churchill, W. S.	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Batsford, Brian	Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Bell, Ronald	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)	Cockeram, Eric	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Cooke, Robert	Fortescue, Tim
Benyon, W.	Coombs, Derek	Foster, Sir John
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Cooper, A. E.	Fowler, Norman
Biffen, John	Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Fox, Marcus
Biggs-Davison, John	Cormack, Patrick	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Blaker, Peter	Costain, A. P.	Fry, Peter
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Critchley, Julian	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Body, Richard	Crouch, David	Gardner, Edward
Boscawen, Robert	Crowder, F. P.	Gibson-Watt, David
Bossom, Sir Clive	Curran, Charles	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bowden, Andrew	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Glyn, Dr. Alan
Braine, Bernard	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj.-Gen.	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Bray, Ronald	Dean, Paul	Goodhart, Philip
Brewis, John	Dixon, Piers	Goodhew, Victor
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Gorst, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Drayson, G. B.	Gower, Raymond
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Gray, Hamish
Bryan, Paul	Dykes, Hugh	Green, Alan
Grieve, Percy	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Madel, David	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Crylls, Michael	Maginnis, John E.	Scott, Nicholas
Gummer, Selwyn	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Scott-Hopkins, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Marten, Neil	Sharpies, Richard
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.	Mather, Carol	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Maude, Angus	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Mawby, Ray	Simeons, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Sinclair, Sir George
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Skeet, T. H. H.
Haselhurst, Alan	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hastings, Stephen	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Soref, Harold
Havers, Michael	Miscampbell, Norman	Speed, Keith
Hawkins, Paul	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Spence, John
Hay, John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sproat, Iain
Hayhoe, Barney	Moate, Roger	Stainton, Keith
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Molyneaux, James	Stanbrook, Ivor
Heseltine, Michael	Money, Ernie	Steel, David
Hicks, Robert	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Higgins, Terence L.	Monro, Hector	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hiley, Joseph	Montgomery, Fergus	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	More, Jasper	Stokes, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Holland, Philip	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Sutcliffe, John
Holt, Miss Mary	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Tapsell, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn	Mudd, David	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hordern, Peter	Murton, Oscar	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Hornby, Richard	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Neave, Airey	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Tebbit, Norman
Howell, David (Guildford)	Normanton, Tom	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Nott, John	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Hunt, John		Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Tilney, John
James, David	Osborn, John	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Trew, Peter
Jessel, Toby	Pardoe, John	Tugendhat, Christopher
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Percival, Ian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Joplirg, Michael	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Vickers, Dame Joan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Pink, R. Bonner	Waddington, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pounder, Rafton	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Kimball, Marcus	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Walt, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Walters, Dennis
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Ward, Dame Irene
Kinsey, J. R.	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Warren, Kenneth
Kirk, Peter	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kitson, Timothy	Raison, Timothy	White, Roger (Cravesend)
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Knox, David	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Wiggin, Jerry
Lambton, Antony	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Wilkinson, John
Lane, David	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Woodnutt, Mark
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Worsley, Marcus
Longden, Gilbert	Ridsdale, Julian	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Loveridge, John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Younger, Hn. George
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
McCrindle, R. A.	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McLaren, Martin	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Rost, Peter	Mr. Walter Clegg.
McNair-Wilson, Michael	Royle, Anthony
NOES
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Blenkinsop, Arthur	Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Allen, Scholefield	Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Booth, Albert	Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Armstrong, Ernest	Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Ashley, Jack	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Cohen, Stanley
Ashton, Joe	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Concannon, J. D.
Atkinson, Norman	Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Conlan, Bernard
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Buchan, Norman	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Barnes, Michael	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Barnett, Joel	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Crawshaw, Richard
Beaney, Alan	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Cronin, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Cant, R. B.	Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Bidwell, Sydney	Carmichael, Neil	Dalyell, Tam
Bishop, E. S.	Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Pendry, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Pentland, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Judd, Frank	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Kaufman, Gerald	Prescott, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Kelley, Richard	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Deakins, Eric	Kerr, Russell	Price, William (Rugby)
Dempsey, James	Kinnock, Neil	Probert, Arthur
Doig, Peter	Lambie, David	Rankin, John
Dormand, J. D.	Lamond, James	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Latham, Arthur	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Douglas-Marat, Bruce	Lawson, George	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Driberg, Tom	Leadbitter, Ted	Richard, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dunnett, Jack	Leonard, Dick	Roberts.Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Eadie, Alex	Lestor, Miss Joan	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&Radnor)
ENis, Tom	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
English, Michael	Lipton, Marcus	Roper, John
Evans, Fred	Lomas, Kenneth	Rose, Paul B.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Loughlin, Charles	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Foot, Michael	McBride, Neil	Silliars, James
Ford, Ben	McCartney, Hugh	Silverman, Julius
Forrester, John	McElhone, Frank	Skinner, Dennis
Fraser, John (Norwood)	McGuire, Michael	Small, William
Freeson, Reginald	Mackenzie, Cregor	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Garrett, W. E.	Mackie, John	Spearing, Nigel
Gilbert, Dr. John	Mackintosh, John P.	Spriggs, Leslie
Ginsburg, David	Maclennan, Robert	Stallard, A. W.
Golding, John	MacPherson, Malcolm	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Gourlay, Harry	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Strang, Gavin
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Marks, Kenneth	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Marquand, David	Swain, Thomas
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Taverne, Dick
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Mendelson, John	Tinn, James
Hardy, Peter	Mikardo, Ian	Tomney, Frank
Harper, Joseph	Millan, Bruce	Torney, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Tuck, Raphael
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Urwin, T. W.
Hattersley, Roy	Molloy, William	Wainwright, Edwin
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)	Wallace, George
Horam, John	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Watkins, David
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Weitzman, David
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Moyle, Roland	Wellbeloved, James
Huckfield, Leslie	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Murray, Ronald King	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Ogden, Eric	Whitehead, Phillip
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	O'Halloran, Michael	Whitlock, William
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	O'Malley, Brian	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hunter, Adam	Oram, Bert	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Orbach, Maurice	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Janner, Greville	Orme, Stanley	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Oswald, Thomas	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
John, Brynmor	Palmer, Arthur
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Pavitt, Laurie	Mr. William Hamling.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)