STUDENT UNIONS (REGISTRATION) BILL (Hansard, 25 February 1972)

§ Sir Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I would prefer to have a little longer to introduce the Bill but I suppose I am lucky to be able to do so at all. The Bill is supported by some hon. Members opposite.
The House will recall that in July, 1969, the all-party Select Committee on Education and Science, of which the right Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—a supporter of the Bill—was Chairman and I was Vice-Chairman, included the following in paragraphs 590 to 592 of its report: Nevertheless, while all students are automatically members of the Unions which are wholly publicly financed, it is in the public interest to ensure that unions are properly run, to safeguard both public expenditure and also the interests of their members. … If students claim participation and representation as an expression of democratic principle, there is a burden on students themselves to ensure that their own autonomous institutions equally encourage participation and are representative of the views of their members. That there are difficulties is conceded by the National Union of Students, because they themselves have recommended the acceptance of model rules by the Student Unions. We do not think that this is sufficient. There should be a central authority with powers similar to those exercised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies over trade unions and no student union should be recognised for purposes of Union grant unless it is registered with, and its constitution approved by, that central authority. We regard such a provision as compatible with full Student Union autonomy. We are only concerned to provide that the limits within which that autonomy is exercised shall be properly defined and that all those who are automatically members should have adequate safeguards to ensure that their affairs are properly conducted." (Paragraphs 590–2.) We made an almost unanimous recommendation, the one exception being an hon. Member who is no longer in the House. Those who supported the recommendation included not only the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North but also the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member 1753 for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). But nothing was done by the then Government and nothing has been done yet by the present Government. The suggestion for model rules was made in a memorandum submitted to the Committee by the National Union of Students, which stated that the aims and objectives of a students' union constitution are very important and added: The National Union of Students advises constituent unions that these should be wholly charitable in nature. I think it is generally admitted that the present system of financing student unions is not satisfactory. From the point of view of local education authorities it has been described as a modern example of taxation without representation and by Lord Boyle as an open-ended commitment of growing dimensions. But I am not concerned this evening with the method of financing student unions, but only with the two objectives pinpointed by the Select Committee: … it is in the public interest to ensure the Unions are properly run, to safeguard both public expenditure and also the interests of their members. There is undoubtedly grave public disquiet both because of the maverick contributions occasionally made from union funds to such organisations as the I.R.A. and overseas guerrillas but also because of the unruly and violent behaviour of a small minority of students, dutifully recorded from time to time by the mass media. It is a small minority but the whole body of "ordinary students" as they modestly describe themselves in the dozens of letters of support for this Measure which I have received is unjustly defiled by their contact with this minority and some people demand that all financial support for student unions should be withdrawn. But that is not the way to deal with this blemish.
Student unions are an essential part of university and college life; and I believe that they can only function as they should if subscriptions are universally compulsory. But they must be subject to public accountability and some of their members must not be allowed to prevent the majority from enjoying the too brief period which they spend at universities and similar institutions. The Federation of Conservative Students describes what happens: 1754 A small minority of Left-wingers have gained this extraordinary dominance almost entirely through the spread of union general meetings. Until recently the most important body in most university and college unions was an elected council but with the increased political interest in universities which developed in the late 60s general meetings acquired sovereign powers or greatly increased in importance. Such meetings have become for most students trials by boredom. The Left endlessly prolong tedious discussions until only their own supporters remain. They filibuster, continually adjourn, or spin out the discussion for 10 or 12 hours. Quora are ignored, or are so tiny as to have no effect … The average student has not the time to attend these general meetings, or if he has he can think of less tedious things to do with it. It is no good saying that individual students can seek redress from the courts because they have neither time nor money to do so although one of them, Mr. Tony Baldry, did so very successfully recently.
It seems that there is a number of students, small perhaps but nevertheless too large, who are so consumed by envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness that they must find it difficult to enjoy anything. Why, one wonders, are those guilty of outrageous behaviour permitted to remain in statu pupillari? There is a report which I have just received from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia which should be read by all my colleagues.
What can be done? Two years after the report of the Select Committee, the Department published its consultative document which suggested three potential solutions, recommending one in particular. This document found no favour in any quarter but many of its critics appeared to ignore the fact, stated several times in the document, that it was meant to serve as a basis for consultation with all interested parties. One of its three solutions, not the one then preferred by the Department, was that of a registrar.
The Bill purports to introduce that system. I will not go through the Clauses because it is simple enough. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading it will have to be amended in Committee because there are gaps, none of which cannot be filled in Committee. In at least one important respect I will have to ask leave to amend the Long Title by adding some such word as "regulation" because I am advised that the present Long Title does not enable me to include a Clause prohibiting local 1755 education authorities and other public bodies from making grants to any union which is not on the register. And that of course is an essential sanction.
There remains Schedule 2, the requirements as to the rules of a student union. These follow fairly closely the relevant requirements in the First Schedule to the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and also some suggestions made by the National Union of Students to the Select Committee. It may be found desirable to particularise some of the requirements in Schedule 2 in Committee, but their principal purpose is to preserve the rights and liberties of individual members of student unions, to give them a kind of students' ombudsman in the registrar, and to ensure that union procedures are genuinely democratic. I hope they will meet with the approval of students generally.

§ Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)
As I have only a very short time I want to concentrate on one or two points.
The first is to emphasise again that this Bill is not an idea thought out by the Select Committee. This was a proposal made to the Select Committee by the National Union of Students.
What the National Union of Students said was, "We exercise functions comparable with those of trade unions; therefore, we should have the protection and benefit of registration." What it felt—and this is the position my hon. Friends have to face—was that the student unions felt that it was unfair and even provocative that their constitutions should be determined by and their finances should be dependent upon the college and university authorities.
This, I would emphasise, is most important for the local education colleges, especially as one knows that the National Union of Students is dominated by the universities. The university unions, in a way, have got some protection because the Royal Charters of the universities come before the Privy Council and one can say that the students have some opportunity to make representations.
The Select Committee has been faced with the difficulties at Guildford and Hornsey colleges of art. We thought it 1756 was unfair to expect a resolution of these difficulties to depend upon the two parties when one of them could determine the constitution and finance of the other. We had a similar situation at the L.S.E.
I do not think we can say, as the National Union of Students now says, that the situation has changed because Mr. Jack Straw and Mr. Fiske have been replaced by Mr. Digby Jacks. We have still difficulties at the L.S.E. and very real difficulties at the North London Polytechnic, and we have had real difficulties at Swansea, and many others less publicised.
It is unrealistic to expect the college or university in these circumstances to be responsible for the constitution of the student union. We believe it should be independent and safeguarded by registration. But, quite apart from these local difficulties, the National Union of Students in its evidence complained that there are some thousand independent college authorities all of whom interpret what is required in a completely different way. We share its complaint.
The National Union of Students was convinced that it was right in its complaint and solemnly went to the Department and told the Secretary of State that as far as the polytechnics were concerned the student unions should not be approved by the college authorities". It was in this context that the student unions said they should be recognised by the Registrar of the Friendly Societies. We found the Registrar himself unable to do this; he could not recognise them as trade unions. We also found that the Trades Union Congress was unenthusiastic about the student unions being recognised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. We therefore made a recommendation which we thought would be acceptable—indeed, we found to be acceptable—namely, that the unions should be subject to a similar registration.

§ Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North)
This is a major Measure affecting—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
Order. Debate to be resumed what day?

§ Sir Gilbert Longden
On a point of order. Four o'clock had struck, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you called the 1757 hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). Why cannot we put the Bill to the vote?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Four o'clock had not struck when I called the hon. Member.