DISCRIMINATION: ASSOCIATIONS NOT WITHIN S.11

HC Deb 27 October 1976 vol 918 cc567-601

Lords amendment: No. 18, leave out Clause 25.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

I think that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Government amendment to the words which it is sought to restore to the Bill, and Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 22, 40, 41 and 42.

Mr. Rees

I apologise to the House for not having been involved in the earlier part of the debate. That was because of other responsibilities which will be temporary and which I hope the House will understand. I wanted to speak on this matter of working men's clubs as a member of working men's clubs, and one or two in particular, for a number of years.

Perhaps I might begin by sketching the background to Clause 25, which has already been debated at some length here and in another place. The House of Lords decided in its judicial capacity in the Charter and Preston Dockers cases that Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1968 does not apply to the members or associates of social clubs. In 1968 there was, of course, no intention that that measure should apply to bona fide private members clubs". However, in these two cases the House of Lords ruled that the test for distinguishing between a club which is in what I might term the public sphere, and hence within Section 2, and one which is in the private sphere is whether the club operates a genuine selection procedure. As a matter of policy, the Government now regard the effects of this test as unacceptable, as we pointed out in the White Paper. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members who have been involved in this matter will have read the relevant parts of the White Paper.

Having reached the conclusion that the dividing line which had been drawn between clubs in the public sphere and those in the private sphere was unacceptable, we were faced with the problem of devising a more acceptable one. The solution which is embodied in Clause 25 is that the legislation should apply to all clubs except those with fewer than 25 members, of whatever kind. In other words, we have adopted a criterion of size. We acknowledge that this is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, but we consider that it is much to be preferred to the selection procedure criterion. The figure of 25 has not been plucked from nowhere, however, because 25 is the minimum number of members which a club must have if it is to qualify for registration under the Licensing Acts.

I come now to the criticisms which have been levelled at the clause—first, the right to apply tests of "personal acceptability". It has been suggested that the clause will prevent clubs from applying tests of personal acceptability to applicants for membership. This is certainly contrary to the Government's intention, and we do not believe that the clause has this effect. As we said in paragraph 72 of the White Paper, The Government considers that it is right that all clubs should be allowed to apply a test of personal acceptability to candidates for membership, but it considers that it is against the public interest that they should be entitled to do this on racial grounds. The Government's position can be summed up as follows. Clubs can certainly require persons to pass the test that as individuals they should be acceptable to a majority of the selection committee, but all except small clubs should not be permitted to say to an applicant "We find you unacceptable because of your race." The issue is one in which there are strong views on each side, and I recommend the House to support the policy embodied in Clause 25.

In another place, Lord Hailsham said that the clause would be unenforceable because it would be impossible to prove that a selection committee had refused to admit someone to membership on racial grounds. There is substance in that point. In many cases it will indeed be difficult to prove that a club has discriminated on racial grounds. That, however, is not a reason for deleting a clause which has its justification in the principle of non-discrimination. We should not over-estimate the difficulties. A club which is simply operating a colour bar on membership might find it difficult to explain away, for example, evidence advanced by the complainant that it had, over a substantial period, accepted 90 out of 100 applications received from white people but none of the 25 applications from black people. Hon. Members should also remember that there have been cases relating to discrimination by clubs.

8.45 p.m.

I am aware of the view that voluntary initiatives are likely to be more effective than the heavy hand of legislation in eliminating discrimination in clubs. Voluntary initiatives are extremely important and should be encouraged. The law by itself is not enough to influence the minds of men and women. But the Government do not regard voluntary initiatives as a substitute for a clear statement by Parliament on this question or for the provision of legal remedies for those who have suffered this unacceptable form of discrimination.

I am aware that the Club and Institute Union has expressed opposition to Clause 25 and that it has proposed an amendment to its rules to empower the executive committee of the union to deal appropriately with a club which has been proved to have discriminated. I welcome that initiative, but we do not regard it as an adequate substitute for legislation. It should be borne in mind that, large as is the number of clubs affiliated to the Club and Institute Union—about 4,000—it is small in comparison with the 24,000 or so clubs registered under Part II of the Licensing Act 1964, and most of which we expect to fall within the scope of Clause 25.

Voluntary action is valuable. Influencing the minds of men and women is the long-term solution to the problem, but the Government and the country must decide on the basic question of discrimination in working men's clubs. I hope that the House will disagree with the Lords in the amendment.

Mr. Clegg

I declare an interest as a member of many clubs of all kinds. I am president of the North-West Area Conservative Clubs. The Home Secretary says that the clause is aimed at working men's clubs. In many debates we have been told by hon. Members on the Labour Benches that the law should not interfere or intervene in certain spheres. At no time was that more clear than in the discussions on the Industrial Relations Act. Some Labour Members said that that was too sensitive an area for the law to intervene, and that if it did there would be trouble. They put the argument day after day and night after night that the law should not intervene in working men's clubs and that if it did it would do more harm than good.

I turn to the practical way in which the clause will work. There is a misunderstanding, which was apparent in what the Home Secretary said. It is wrong to think that any member of the public may apply to join a club. I know of no working men's club where an applicant for membership does not have to be proposed and seconded by existing members. Therefore, it would be very difficult for the clause to work where nobody in the club would propose or second somebody of a different race who wished to join. It is hard to see how a case could be built up against a club where the membership was determined not to let in anybody of another race.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West)

If the hon. Gentleman believes that it would be impossible to found a legal case, or at least to prove it, what is he worried about?

Mr. Clegg

As a lawyer, I am always concerned that the House should not pass unenforceable legislation. The hon. Gentleman's argument was used by Labour Members when they opposed the Industrial Relations Act. They said that it would be unenforceable.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

It was.

Mr. Clegg

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. If that is what he thinks, he should be on the side of those who support the Lords amendment. We think that the Clause is unworkable. If people make determined attempts to join clubs which do not want them, and eventually secure membership through the law, there will be immense tension within the clubs. How can members cope with a person who has been pushed into membership against their wishes? It would be an impossible situation, causing more tension than if we left the position as it is.

Labour Members argued in Committee that in some way working men's clubs were different from other clubs; that they were not really private but were somehow public. I think that it was said that a social club could form the hub of village life or provide the main social life in a suburb, and that therefore such a club was not a private members' club but something of a hybrid, a sort of public-private club.

I do not accept that argument. It is wrong that a working men's club should be treated in any way differently from any other club. I have knowledge of such clubs' voting procedures and know that they are very careful about whom they invite to join. When I joined a British Legion club I had to appear before the committee and go through the same procedure as I have in other clubs that I have joined.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

To join a British Legion club one would obviously have to have been a member of the Armed Forces at some time. Given that membership of the Armed Forces is the criterion, how does the question whether a man is black or brown, for example, come into consideration?

Mr. Clegg

There are many coloured members of British Legion clubs, because they have the necessary qualifications. They could be honorary members, but that was not my argument. I was saying that it seemed to be argued that a working men's club was somehow different from other clubs. I do not believe that there is any difference at all, because the same principles apply to the Carlton Club as to a working men's club, to White's Club or any other club. Obviously, the main feature in all reported cases concerns working men's clubs—the Preston Dockers' Club and other clubs of that nature. That is why this clause has been put in.

I have explained my objection to using the law in this area. It is counter-productive and will be difficult to operate against a club that is quite determined that it will not have people of other races as members.

As I understand it, we are also considering Clause 26, under Lords Amendment No. 19. That deals with the situation after Clause No. 25 goes. Clause 26 makes it possible to have ethnic clubs, such as the London Welsh in London. I expressed reservations about this clause in Committee. I can see that a case can be made out for having what I would call exile clubs, such as the London Welsh and the London Scottish. If there are any Englishmen in Wales or Scotland who have clubs, that would apply equally to them. But if we take Clause 26 as it stands I think that we shall get into difficulties. It is all right having a London Welsh club or a Welsh club in London where exiles meet but it is a very different matter to have a club in Wales limited to Welshmen whose grandmothers, for example, were born in Wales.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Of course such things do exist. The Cymmredorion Society is like that and operates in parts of Wales. It keeps me out. But why not?

Mr. Stokes

There is an even more well-known club for Englishmen—the Royal Society of St. George.

Mr. Clegg

I am pleased to hear that the English at least have something.

If we took Clause 26 to its ultimate conclusion we would find ethnic clubs setting up in their own areas—English clubs for the English and Welsh clubs for the Welsh. They could make a qualifying rule that one's grandmother had to be born in Wales, England, Scotland or Ireland. That could provide a whole series of clubs which could make nonsense of Parliament, because it would not be applying the law in the right way.

We want to preserve the London Welsh and the London Scottish and all these other clubs, but if, at the same time, we are presenting a lever to people to get round the Act I think that Parliament is doing itself a disservice. It will create a feeling of tension where no tension or little tension exists. I beg the Government to think again on this. It would be very easy for them to secure this clause with their majority, but it would cause concern. The clause would be difficult to administer and would do more harm than good.

9 p.m.

Mr. Bid well

The weakness of the case of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) is his contention that the rejection of the Lords Amendment will cause tension. There is tension. There has been tension for a long time, and especially since the passing of the 1965 and the 1968 Race Relations Acts. Therefore, it is not a question of the reintroduction of tension, because tension already exists. The sober question for us is to determine whether what the Bill does will militate against tension or exacerbate that tension.

I approach this matter with as open a mind as I did in 1968, when we had the job of passing the Race Relations Act of that year. We are now about to embark on a new stage in seeking to establish racial harmony.

Clubs of the nature dealt with in these provisions often grow up in areas with high concentrations of coloured people who feel antipathy to existing "white men's clubs", if I may so call them. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Fylde and I share a desire to see greater harmony in a multi-racial society in this country.

In Committee many sincere contributions were made stemming from the background experiences of life as hon. Members saw them. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) entertained us with his description of the use of white and black balls. That kind of activity applies not only to the kind of club the right hon. Gentleman uses but also to working men's clubs and Labour clubs, where covert discrimination may take place. The new principle will mean that those activities will be open to inquiry. However, the matter may not go much further than that. We are not taking a gigantic leap on this subject, and we certainly do not wish to cause tension.

I understand that many clubs in this category have taken legal opinion on the question of discrimination. I was grateful that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took time from his busy round of duties—because at present he has a great deal more on his shoulders than his duties as Home Secretary—to address us on this thorny question. Not everybody in the Labour movement is unanimous about the application of the principle of law in this sphere.

In the 1968 debate I agreed with the then Home Secretary, now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that it was best not to take the law into this area of club life. Club life is part and parcel of the British way of life and working men's clubs are a significant part of people's activities. The majority of members of these clubs regard any aspect of discrimination on ethnic grounds or grounds of colour as obnoxious. But if minorities in those clubs do not wish to see a change, there is the prospect of the tail wagging the dog.

Part of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for North Fylde dealt with the difficulty of enforcing laws. We have speed limits on the highways and no one in the House would suggest that we abandon them, although it seems that there is a continuous disregard of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. We must bear in mind that we have had a fuel shortage and an incentive to save fuel, but it has not been suggested that we should abandon speed limits either on the roads or on the motorways.

The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) is hopeless in his attitude to these matters. However, he is totally consistent. He is totally opposed to any law that seeks to change his assumption that we cannot have black British people. That is his assumption, and he was saying so earlier.

There are some clubs that base themselves on trade union membership, and some of them have practised discrimination based on colour and ethnic origin that is entirely anti-trade union. The trade union movement, however, does not subscribe to any notion that human worth can be based upon the pigment of anyone's skin or on the fact, as I often put it, that they have not chosen their mothers and fathers correctly. In the older days there were some areas where eyebrows were raised if a member of the Labour Party, or a member of a town council, was not a member of the local Labour club. Coloured people are now becoming officers of their trade unions and shop stewards in industry but in many cases they are not freely taken into club life That is a factor that is offsetting the progress that has been made.

Integration is inevitably taking place, although the Press highlights examples of antagonism. However, the Press does not highlight the enormous number of friendships that have been established. If a white worker works alongside a black worker and the white man is unable to take the black man into his club for a drink and introduce him to the membership, notwithstanding that they are both members of the same union branch, that is entirely obnoxious and something that should be eradicated. If we cannot leave these matters to what I would think would be a natural process of fair play stemming from our experiences of the 1968 Act, we shall have to encourage movement and progress by law. When I first came to this place I did not believe that we needed legislation in this area. However, the PEP reports, for example, showed wholesale discrimination.

I knew that the theory of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would never work. He has been regarded as a crazy man in the light of the proposition he is now making, which is not economically viable—namely, that we give every coloured person £1,000 and send him or her out of the country. If we adopted that policy we should frighten many talented people to death and be left with the residue. Those who had the talents or skills required elsewhere would leave, but perhaps I am straying from the terms of the debate.

As for the question whether their Lordships are right or wrong, I should not wish to put my faith in another place. Some of us want to see it removed altogether. Whatever we may feel about the constitutional issue, I should never put my faith in the ability of their Lordships to make a value judgment as to how these matters affect ordinary people in their everyday lives.

We understand the limitations of the law. So far in this issue, it has been an "egging-on" process. That is why it has been so notoriously gentle. We are now giving the new Commission extended powers, but it will still have to tread with an enormous amount of delicacy. However, I have faith in the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and his ability to proceed in the spirit that came about in Committee. We had a good Committee stage, and there was a great deal of good will. There is only a narrow difference between us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring himself back to the amendment.

Mr. Bidwell

I think that the balance of experience—and some of us have had considerable experience of this matter—is one the side of rejecting the Lords amendment.

Mr. Dudley Smith

The Home Secretary said that, in the long term, race relations would come right only by education and example. I agree. I think that that is the only way in which race rela- tions will come right. I have not opposed various points of the legislation on race relations contained in this Bill and in the Acts, but I have never really felt that such legislation would do the job it was designed to do. Unfortunately, race relations have not been improved. In this instance, I believe that we are on the wrong track. The clause will put up the backs of a lot of members of the clubs, and I foresee great difficulty for management committees in dealing with the personal acceptability criterion.

Of course, certain individuals can be described as undesirable for membership. There will be no difficulty in deciding, in such a situation, that a white person is undesirable if the committee genuinely believes that he is undesirable. But what happens if a committee, quite honourably and fairly, decides that a black individual is undesirable? Is he immediately to lodge a complaint with the Commission? I believe that there will be many such cases, and the situation places those who run the clubs in good faith in a particular difficulty.

There is another aspect. Let us suppose that a club, to its credit, decides to open its doors widely to black people and that, because of the local situation, there is an inrush of black people, resulting in a racial imbalance, with more black members than white. When I was at the Department of Employment, we had complaints from factories where the number of black workers had increased until they had become the majority, with the result that white people left. Such imbalance could be created in clubs, with complaints from white people about black takeovers.

By any standard, this provision is a direct interference with a private body, irrespective of what type of club or institution it might be. When the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and I were in Newark, New Jersey, we met an impressive black social worker with enormous experience. He was very realistic. He told us "You can legislate for people to do or not to do certain things, but you cannot legislate for their hearts. You cannot decree that someone should love or like someone else. You can tell him that he must tolerate other people and work with them, but you cannot make him like them unless he wants to do so."

In the longer term, however reprehensible it may be, some people simply do not like black people, and only by education and example can they be made to understand that good race relations are important and relevant. My feeling is that this particular aspect of the legislation will exacerbate the situation and annoy a lot of people. There are quite a lot of people who would welcome black people to their clubs in normal circumstances but who might deliberately refuse them entry immediately we start passing legislation like this.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that racial discrimination diminishes when white and black people get to know each other as individuals? This fact is borne out by practical experience. The kind of attitude that the hon. Gentleman is presenting in his argument reduces the likelihood of black and white people ever getting acquainted.

Mr. Smith

I agree that when people get to know each other a lot of the antagonism goes. But I still maintain that this should be done on a voluntary and progressive basis. The moment one starts saying "thou shalt", it all becomes counter-productive. People immediately say "Oh, no, I won't", and they then begin to look for ways to get round the law.

Ways and means will be found of getting round the law in respect of clubs, and then this will become bad legislation which will be widely held in contempt. The Home Secretary's original approach of education and example was the right course. That approach should be fully supported, and the framework of legislation should be kept as light as possible. The heavy-handed approach of these two clauses will provoke just the kind of situation we do not want.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) has pointed out very correctly two areas of difficulty which must be encountered in a pluralistic and democratic society. The problem does arise with ethnic clubs, whether they are Caribbean or Polish. But we are not talking about limited interest clubs here; we are talking about those which purport to be open to the public. For example, a working men's club certainly does not depend on the pigmentation of the skin. We must delineate very carefully between particular interest clubs and those open to the public at large.

I raised this matter in Committee on the second Race Relations Bill and I put forward that form of wording in order to overcome the difficulty which the House of Lords eventually faced when coming to its decision. The brotherhood of man is fundamental among the ideals of working men's clubs, and the only qualification must be wether a person is a working man.

The second difficulty is the problem of enforcement. The hon. Member is right to point out that if membership is denied to a person because of the perfectly good reason of undesirability, and if that person claims that it is because of the colour of his skin, problems will arise. But this kind of thing is faced every day in industrial tribunals. Those who practise on these tribunals know only too well that one can discover whether there was a bona fide reason which caused an employer to dismiss someone or whether it was because of his colour.

The third matter raised was that of tension. Tension is caused by discrimination, and the greater the number of clubs which discriminate, the more tension there will be. I reject the argument that the passing of legislation of this sort increases tension. Legislation is only one aspect of the matter. It has very rightly been said by the Conservatives that education is important. But legislation is a form of education, and what we enshrine in our legislation is educative. If we state that we have no objection to a colour bar in clubs, in a sense we are educating in the wrong way. Even if we cannot achieve perfection in the enforcement of the law—and, goodness knows, we never do—that does not prevent laws going on to the statute book, because they have an educative quality about them.

Therefore, all in all, there are dilemmas. But if one is serious about combating the evil of racialism in our society and about constructing a society in which discrimination is not sanctioned by authority and is shown to be rejected by authority in the form of legislation, although that is only part of what we are trying to do, we must come irresistibly to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend is right to seek to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. Grieve

Let me take up a phrase used by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). He spoke of clubs of limited interest, but there was no reference to clubs of limited interest in Clause 25 as it went to the Lords. Clause 25 covers all clubs save those with a membership below 25.

I have three reasons for opposing Clause 25 and for supporting the Lords amendment. First, let me deal with the positive objection. The club is one of the most peculiarly British institutions that exist. We have exported it to all parts of the world where we have been active, and it has won the admiration and sometimes the suspicion of large numbers of our Continental friends. But it is a peculiarly British institution, which is founded upon a community of interest and the enlarged friendship that may come from a community of interest, even though it may embrace many hundreds of men in a working men's club.

It is essentially a private and not a public institution, Even when it is a working men's club in an area such as Preston, or around Birmingham, where my constituency is located, it is still a private institution. If the law intrudes upon the deliberations of those who are deciding who are welcome in a club and who are not, it is cutting at the root and basis of the whole system of clubs as they exist. That is true not only of the Carlton Club and White's but of the Preston Working Men's Club.

I come, secondly, to the negative reason, which I believe is even more important. Whether it is right or wrong thus to intrude, I believe that the ill effects of doing so will be far greater than any beneficial effects that might be anticipated. To intrude thus upon the deliberations of bodies of men who may be few in number—perhaps only 26, 50 or 100—will cause the greatest resentment. It would cause almost as much resentment as a similar intrusion into the family life of any one of us. That is something that we ought not to overlook. The danger of a backlash of resentment in legislation of this kind is a very great danger indeed.

I respect the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I had the privilege of serving with him for some time on the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, and I believe that he aims at improving race relations in this country. However, we must be on our guard at all times against creating resentment by over-legislation and intrusion of this kind. This is intrusion into an area that is essentially private. That was the argument that appealed to their Lordships in the case that has given rise to this clause.

People form clubs for all sorts of reasons. There are fly-fishermen's clubs and butterfly-collecting clubs. While I was in hospital recently, I was asked whether we had formed a club of hon. Members who had pacemakers in their bodies. I think there are two—my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) and myself—but no doubt the Whips will see to it that there are soon far more of us if we continue to have the spate of legislation to which we have been subjected recently.

A club is essentially an organisation of people as friends, or people dedicated to a particular purpose, or getting together for a particular reason. This legislation will intrude upon them and will cause resentment. For those reasons, it is objectionable and, as Lord Hailsham said in another place, it will be virtually unenforceable. The more it is sought to enforce it, the greater will be the resentment caused. I urge the Secretary of State not to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

For some of the reasons put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Lords amendment. I appeal to Opposition Members to think carefully before they vote against rejection of the amendment. It is possible—though I trust it will not happen for a long time—that hon. Members opposite will form a Government some time in the future. It would be sad if the black community were to associate the Conservative Party with the kind of repressive and antagonistic provisions that would follow the rejection of Clause 25.

The hon. and learned Member for Solihull talked about resentment and a backlash. I remind him that race relations in this country improved considerably for a substantial number of years as people got to know each other as individuals but that relations have deteriorated in recent months with explicit racial antagonisms being expressed by a few hon. Members opposite, whose records are not very commendable in this respect, and a larger number of racially-antagonistic people outside the House.

9.30 p.m.

The great majority of black people live in the deprived centres of our cities in areas where they almost inevitably suffer deprivation in housing conditions, employment prospects and in many other respects. If to that deprivation is to be added that they are positively to be discriminated against either by the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that they should be given £1,000 to go away—which might make them seem welcome members of the community—or by the suggestion which has been made by others that it is all right for a working men's club to say "We are all working men, but we do not want black working men in our club", race relations will inevitably deteriorate, not because of the antagonism of white people but because of the antagonism of black members of the British community towards those who are discriminating against them and who are responsible for the deprivation from which they suffer.

As has been acknowledged, in many areas in this country the working men's club provides the sole source of social life. That applies often not only in the village but in the large town. If people find themselves deprived of membership of the social life of the community, they will be bitterly antagonistic towards those who are excluding them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) rightly pointed out that enforceability is not so important. We have repeatedly carried into law expressions of the desires of the community, and they have to a large extent been honoured in practice. It will be difficult to ensure that a particular piece of legislation is enforced in the courts, if, indeed, it is necessary to seek to enforce it in the courts. I trust that it will not be necessary.

Once it has been expressed in legislation that it is not right that people should be excluded from membership of a social club because of their colour, the vast majority of social clubs will honour that expression of the law. The majority of people will feel that, as Parliament expressed it, they should now carry that intention into effect. I hope that in carrying that intention into effect, as they will if we reject the Lords amendment, they will not be saying to themselves "The Labour Party"—and, I trust, the Liberal Party—"wanted this repudiation of the entitlement to discriminate to be carried into law, but the Conservative Party was willing that the discrimination should be perpetuated."

Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border) indicated dissent.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) dissents from that. I hope he will exercise such influence as he can on his hon. Friends on the Back Benches to ensure that the voting on this issue is not a party matter but that all parties express the determination that there shall not be discrimination. I am aware that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and others will inevitably go their own way, but most of the parties will be expressing their determination that there shall not be discrimination.

If we allow a working men's club to say that it will not have black working men or a dockers' club to say that it will not have black dockers, we shall continue to generate the kind of racial problems of which we have become so conscious in South London in the last week. If we discriminate against individuals who are in other respects deprived, whatever the background to their presence in this country may be, we shall build up a degree of racial problems in future which will be infinitely more difficult to resolve than those we have now.

As I said earlier in an intervention, racial problems in Britain have been improved. I have extensive knowledge of what has happened in North Kensington. I have lived there for 18 years. I first went to live there at the time of the race riots in 1958. For a very long time the situation was steadily improving. I believe that it is still fairly good there, nothwithstanding the present problems. The situation got better because people came to know each other as individuals. Instead of there being the black menace that no one knew, people got to know each other and the antagonism could not be sustained against Charlie, who lived upstairs, or Joe, whom one met at the bus stop, or John, with whom one drank in the pub.

As long as white working men's clubs are entitled and and enabled to exclude from their membership those whom they do not know, antagonism will be perpetuated. As soon as those people come into the clubs, it will evaporate and we shall not have the problem.

Obviously, my right hon and hon. Friends will support the Government's motion to reject the amendment. I urge Opposition Members to think very carefully before they vote to retain the Lords amendment.

Mr. Ronald Bell

I fear that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) will be disappointed when it comes to the Division on the amendment, because he will find not that only a few Opposition Members oppose the Government's motion but that we are against it as a party.

What is perhaps equally interesting is that when the 1968 Act was passing through this House, the Labour Party, as a party, was against the extension of that law to clubs. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has frankly said so this evening. Therefore, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden should have the sense to realise that this must, at the very least, be a marginal argument.

I have no doubt on which side of the argument I come down. When I say that it is a marginal argument, I am speaking on the assumption that one accepts the basic policy of the Bill that discrimination should be prohibited by law. I do not accept that, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I do not believe in this kind of law. This is where the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) are rather in the same channel of the argument. The hon. Member for Blackley described this, quite frankly, as an educative use of the law. That is a phrase that he has used in the past, and it has been used by many of his colleagues. I suppose that if I had to reduce to a single expression the reason why I am opposed to this use of the law, whether in relation to sex, race, or anything else, it would be that I do not agree for one moment that the law should be used in this so-called educative way.

What is the law doing? It is enjoining by penalties—let alone the civil procedures; it is a penal code, whatever the procedure—upon the whole citizenry, as a matter of compulsion, the particular views, philosophy and standard of values of one political group. It is no good the hon. Member for Blackley shaking his head. Does he think that the general body of the public does not agree with me rather than with him about the existence of legislation of this kind? I am talking not about the public's attitude to the presence of Commonwealth immigrants among us but their attitude to the use of law in this educative role, whether in relation to sex, race or anything else. In that respect I should be very surprised if I, rather than the hon. Gentleman, did not reflect the public view.

However, be that as it may, we have this specific question of the clubs before us. The last time this arose, in 1968, I took a great interest in the Bill that was going through the House. Any suggestion that clubs might be affected was instantly swept away. We were told that we were being unreasonable in suggesting that, and we were given assurances that clubs would not be affected and that they were private.

Now, the Government come forward with proposals to tread into that private sphere and regulate the activities of the citizen in it. They do so in a strange way. They say that if there are more than 25 people in the club there must be no discrimination on the ground of colour. That is what it comes to. There is something about race as well, but Clause 26 provides that a club circumscribed by the definition of a racial group is permitted. That is not a geographical group. Members of the London Scottish Club do not have to have lived formerly in Scotland, they do not have to speak with a Scots accent or to have been born in Scotland. The words in Clause 26 are "racial group". So there could be a Yorkshire Caucasian club. Even the United Nations has a list of five recognised races, of which Caucasian is one. As the United Nations calls the Caucasians a racial group it would he difficult to argue in the courts that it was not.

All that is necessary is for the Workington Working Men's Club to call itself the Workington Caucasian Club. That will bring it under Clause 26, and the club is through. That is too silly for words. Clause 26 is necessary because of the Caledonians, the Cymmredorians, the London Dutch, and so on. There has to be an exemption for the racial club, and the exemption makes nonsense of the attempted control. Even with the racial group clubs we must not distinguish on the ground of colour. We do not need to. If the distinction is racial and genetic, we do not need to bring in the Ringelmann chart. It is covered.

What is this nonsense about? Not only is the absurd Clause 25 totally unenforceable but it is aimed only at working men's clubs. It will have no effect in the Athenaeum. Does anyone think that it will? Will anyone bring an action against the Athenaeum because he was refused membership on the ground that his face is black? That is ridiculous. It is hoped to catch the working men's clubs because their arrangements are not so sophisticated.

In the ordinary West End members' club the characteristic rule is that two black balls shall exclude. Almost every members' club has that provision. Two people object, and anonymity is the basis and always has been. It has nothing to do with race. Our practice in England has always been that if two members object to the proposal, the person proposed cannot come in, and that is the end of it. But the names of the objectors are not known.

In other clubs of which I have been a member it is necessary to have a proposer, a seconder and ten assentors. Suppose a person cannot get 12 people to support him, who will be prosecuted—all the rest of the club, because they would not be the 12 men?

The clause is aimed at what one might almost call the Labour Party's working men's dubs, which have dared to disagree with the intellectualist element in their party—

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

Intellectualist?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Bell

In spoken English it is difficult to use inverted commas. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) presume the inverted commas? I have in mind people like the hon. Member for Blackley. I think that makes it clear.

Of course, the ordinary supporters of the Labour Party in the constituencies feel rather more strongly about this than some of us do. The idea that this compulsive procedure will make everybody friends reminds me of a proposal that once came from the Labour Party that if a husband and wife could not agree on the housekeeping money they could go round the corner and ask the magistrate for a casting vote, and they could pin that on the mantelpiece and continue. That is the sort of approach to life that we get from the other side. It is absolute nonsense. It is argued, for example, that when, into a street, there is an incursion of people from outside, in substantial numbers, this leads to great friendship and bonhomie all round. That has not been my experience.

The underlying fact is that we never asked the people of this country if they wanted to be turned into a multi-racial society. They have had it done to them and they resent it. All legislation should be drafted with this basic fact in mind. I, personally, am against legislation, but if we are to have it we must not have things like Clause 25 in it. It will cause deep and absolutely legitimate resentment.

It is not a necessary intrusion. One reason why it is not necessary is that it cannot possibly work. If it cannot work, how can it be a necessary element in a Bill like this? I think the Lords in this, as in other respects, are more truly reflecting the mind of the people than the elected Chamber—a very odd reversal of history. It is the Lords who are protecting the people against pressure groups that operate upon the Labour Party. It is a minority of a minority. It is not even a view of the Labour Party. A pressure group gets hold of it, makes it party policy, and the Whips are applied. It is no good our speaking here, because we cannot persuade them. They are not here. But when the bells ring they will come in from all parts of the building. I cannot specify which parts, but there are parts which have the nature of a club. They will come in and vote as they are told. It will not necessarily be the way in which they want to vote.

Let us be grateful to the Lords. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the Government's proposition. If there were a free vote among Labour Members we would carry the day and the Lords amendments would be reaffirmed. They are being defeated because at the turn of the century the Webbs did a three-card trick on the real Labour Party, and they have had their ears pinned against the wall ever since by the intellectuals, who have nothing to do with the working class at all and have grafted—

Mr. Rose

The hon. and learned Gentleman insists on calling me an intellectual. Will he tell the House how many working men's clubs he is a member of; whether his father worked as an engineer, and whether he was brought up in a working-class area? The hon. and learned Gentleman talks in that way, but he is entirely divorced from working-class life and he ought to know it.

Mr. Bell

That sounds to me like a "Round Britain Quiz". Why the answers that I give to those questions should make the hon. Gentleman an intellectual I cannot understand. Anyway, I shall put the answers in a sealed envelope and send them to the hon. Member.

I had concluded my speech, in fact. I repeat only that I am sure that we should vote with a good heart against this motion. I hope that the Lords amendment prevails.

Mr. Budgen

I have twice voiced my opposition to the extension of this legislation to clubs, and I do not propose to deal with the general arguments again. I wish to pose just one question to the Home Secretary, a question which has been put time and time again in these debates but which no one has previously answered.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that he believes that the use of law for educational purposes is a legitimate additional objective in the use of law—

Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated assent.

Mr. Budgen

I see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. But I am sure he will agree that using the law for an additional objective does not cancel the requirement that the law should be enforceable. What happens if, in future, as may well happen in my constituency, a working men's club or a number of clubs decides to defy this law?

I want to make it plain that, although I have opposed the extension of this legislation to clubs, I shall do my level best to persuade them that they have to obey the law, however much I have opposed it and however much they are opposed to it. But what happens in the last resort if an individual working men's club says that it is not prepared to obey this law? Will the 500 members of the Bradmore Working Men's Club, to take an example, be brought before the courts for contempt? Will they be hauled back week after week as they become and more and more debilitated until finally the judge has to give way and say "I am sorry but I shall have to let you out. You have successfully defied the law"?

That is the ultimate situation with which the Home Secretary might be faced. He must face the question of how he will enforce this extension of the law. Until he can satisfy the House that it is genuinely enforceable, he will never persuade anyone on this side to vote for his proposals.

Mr. Whitelaw

We fully understand that the Home Secretary's other duties kept him away from our earlier debates. I have been kept away for similar reasons, so we are together on that. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been in agreement on a number of matters over the years. In this debate, we are in agreement on one point.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) returning, because I have a point to address to him. I feel strongly that any form of discrimination in clubs on grounds of colour is totally odious and totally against everything that we are seeking to do in this country, that it should be stopped on every possible occasion and that we should do everything we can to achieve that end. That is the view of this party.

Mr. Rose

All of them?

Mr. Whitelaw

The hon. Gentleman will just have to take it from me that that is so.

I would say to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that one's view about this proposal—whether to bring the law into the area of clubs—is not a test of one's view on the whole issue. That cannot be so, and I think that the hon. Member does the whole case no service by suggesting that it is.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said very fairly in 1968 that he believed that clubs should not be brought within the ambit of the law because he thought that the natural processes of fair play would produce the desired result. When the hon. Member said that, he was just as clear about the need to stop discrimination in clubs as he is today. Then, however, he decided that he did not want the law; now, he does. There is an argument for saying that the law is separate from the general belief that one has in what one is seeking to do. Hon. Members on the Labour side have decided that the law should operate for clubs, but they did not believe that in 1968.

I have made my view clear from the start. The Government made a great mistake when they decided, particularly after the decision in the Preston case, to bring the law to the clubs. It is a mistake for two main important reasons. First, it will not work; the provision is basically unenforceable. Secondly, it will be counter-productive. Voluntary action was ending discrimination and it would, with pressure, have ended it altogether. Bringing in the law might put back that process.

During the debates in the Lords, a peer said: I recall when I was in the United States some years ago hearing that the ruling of the Supreme Court on the question of segregation had put back by ten years the educative process on non-discrimination in the United States because there is a pace at which public opinion cannot be pushed. We have to be careful that the niceties of the law, and the refinements that can be introduced in it, can possibly do more harm than good."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1st October, 1976; Vol. 374, c. 732–3.] The speaker was not some Right-wing reactionary peer as depicted by Labour Members in this House. He was Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whom we all knew as a Member of this House, and his view is important.

Mr. Douglas-Mann

The decision of the court in the Preston case reversed the educative process which was already taking place. Because of the decision of the court in that case, the process that was already in train was put back. If we do not have Clause 25, the legislation will be in favour of discrimination. The rest of the law is against discrimination, and to omit Clause 25 is to enshrine discrimination within the law.

Mr. Whitelaw

I do not accept that. If the clause proves to be unenforceable, if it does not work and brings the law into contempt, which I believe it may well do, it will set back the educative process, because it will be seen not to have worked. That is the basis of my case.

I shall explain why I believe that in the end it will be unenforceable. The Home Secretary said that the Government were determined to uphold the test of personal acceptability for clubs. The moment that he makes that statement—and, of course, the test of personal acceptability must be kept for clubs—he undermines the whole basis of the clubs. If the test of personal acceptability means anything, it means that if I do not wish to see a particular man—whatever his colour, his race or creed—in a club of which I am a member, I am entitled to say so. And if I happen to be a member of the committee of that club—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That, at this day's Sitting, the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Race Relations Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Whitelaw

If I happen to be a member of the committee of the club, I am entitled to cast my vote in a particular way, and no member of the club will know how I have done it. If I decide on the basis of personal acceptability, I do not see how that can be denied. Where, then, stands the enforceability of the clause?

Some Labour Members say that they do not mind about enforceability because the clause will be good for the soul, the educative process or whatever. I see that argument, but it is very dangerous. It could easily be counter-productive, because we all know that there are people who enjoy making trouble. I have discovered in an increasingly long life that there are all sorts of people who enjoy making trouble in all sorts of areas, and they are not all outside this House. If someone wishes to cause trouble under the clause and become a martyr, he can do it by playing ducks and drakes with the whole principle of personal acceptability. I have believed that all along, and I still believe it strongly.

Secondly, there is the question of progress by voluntary initiative. I find the position of the Government and Labour Members on this matter rather curious. When the question of the shop stewards was discussed earlier, we heard that Mr. Len Murray had said "Leave it to us. Let's proceed by voluntary initiatives. Do not bring the law into our affairs." That may have been wise in his case, but if the law must be kept out of that matter why must it be put in here? There is a considerable contradiction.

I believe that voluntary efforts were producing results. What the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall calls the natural process of fair play should be given a further chance. We are making a grave mistake in bringing the law into this area. The Lords were right to take these two clauses out.

I ask the Government to think again. I have made no secret of my view all along that they are making a great mistake here. Because I want to see discrimination in clubs ended altogether, I hope that I am wrong but I still think that it would be right to take the Lords' view and reject the Secretary of State's view.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

With the leave of the House, I should like to speak again.

Coming new to these debates, I was struck by the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that the Lords reflected public opinion. I think that he would be surprised if he knew the views expressed in club life in general. I advise him not to judge club life on the basis of Beaconsfield. I invite him to visit clubs in the North, but not to see them in a Coronation Streetesque way, with people who are not very intelligent and understand only the sort of argument that he puts forward—in other words, that the matter is rather simple.

I do not object to the hon. and learned Gentleman's having a different view—there are different views on this matter—but I found the way in which he couched his argument curiously offensive. [Interruption.] If it was meant to be offensive, there are ways of being offensive without importing a certain priggishness into a remark.

I have no doubt about the bona fides of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) on this subject. I understand his final remarks. What I say about him goes for most members of his party. In disagreeing on this issue, there is an argument to be made, even though I believe that there is a case for buttressing public opinion by means of the law. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the trade unions. There is a difference here. The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience of trade unions. The trade unions have machinery for dealing with such matters within their organisations. I do not believe that such machinery exists in the area that we are now discussing.

A case for rejecting these clauses is that the development of good race relations needs buttressing by the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said, in a sense law is a form of education. I do not believe that the American experience can be translated here. It is not on all fours in terms of the race problem. However, in this respect, to some degree the translation can be done.

Mr. Grieve

Surely the whole of the race relations legislation, of which this is but the latest part, is based to a large extent on the presumption that the American experience can be imported here.

Mr. Rees

I have said that. All I say is that I do not believe that the American experience, from a social class point of view—black and brown, and so on—is on all fours with that in this country. The black American is older in America than probably 80 per cent. of Americans by origin who have gone there in the past 100 years. Our situation is different. That does not mean that the basic argument cannot be used.

The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) spoke about Clause 26 and used the argument of the London Welsh Club, and so on. I do not blame him. It was a much beter argument than that of the Caucasian clubs. That was a rather foolish line of argument. In the White Paper foreshadowing Clause 26, we said: In addition, there will be an exception to enable bona fide social, welfare, political and sporting organisations whose main object is to confer benefits on a particular ethnic or national group to continue to do so. There is nothing against a West Indian club, but there would be something against a black West Indian club, given the origin of West Indians. Some Tory Members may find this funny, but I do not believe that it is a subject for laughter. It is right for ethnic groups to band together if they wish. If they do, the racial argument does not apply.

Mr. Tebbit

The right hon. Gentleman might be making a bit of a fool of himself by trying to pretend that the ethnic groups to which he has referred would not naturally be groups of the same colour. Would he refer to our proceedings on 8th July, when the then Minister of State said: I am not sure whether Anglo-Saxon would be regarded as a particular racial group within the meaning of the Act."—[Official Report, 8th July 1976; Vol. 914, c. 1905.] Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that it would be so regarded?

Mr. Rees

I have not put my mind to the point. There are black West Indians and brown West Indians. I do not believe that is a foolish remark to make. It is easy to make a fool of oneself, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his regular experiences at

Question Time. The Anglo-Saxon point was not the point that I was on.

Mr. Tebbit

You do not know the answer.

Mr. Rees

That may be, but I do not think it is relevant, and I do not think I need put my mind to that point.

In regard to the Government's position, clubs can certainly require a person to pass a test so that the individual may be acceptable to the majority of the selection committee. That was the point I made before the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) joined us. Furthermore, all but the small clubs should not be permitted to say to an applicant "We find you unacceptable because of your race."

The point was made in discussion that clubs were not affected by the law. I can only tell the House that the law on clubs is about 200 pages long. There is no reason why they should not be affected in this way. These arguments have been dealt with on other occasions, and I am strongly of the view that the Lords amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Ronald Bell

My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that what I said was meant to be offensive. It was not.

Mr. Alison

I withdraw that imputation.

Mr. Bell

It was meant to be a full frontal challenge to the views of the Labour Benches, but I hope that I am never consciously offensive. As for the question of northern clubs, the House may care to know that some years ago members of the Working Men's Club and Institute Union came to me for advice on this matter and I admired those people.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 156.

Division No. 348.]	AYES	[10.12 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Atkinson, Norman	Bishop, E. S.
Allaun, Frank	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Boardman, H.
Anderson, Donald	Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Archer, Peter	Bates, Alf	Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Armstrong, Ernest	Beith, A. J.	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ashton, Joe	Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Bidwell, Sydney	Buchanan, Richard
Campbell, Ian	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Canavan, Dennis	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Roderick, Caerwyn
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Rodgers George (Chorley)
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Rooker, J. W.
Cartwright, John	Hunter, Adam	Roper, John
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Rose, Paul B.
Clemitson, Ivor	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley	John, Brynmor	Rowlands, Ted
Coleman, Donald	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Ryman, John
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Sandelson, Neville
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Sedgemore, Brian
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Corbett, Robin	Kaufman, Gerald	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Lambie, David	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Lamborn, Harry	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard	Lamond, James	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cronin, John	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Silverman, Julius
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Skinner, Dennis
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Lipton, Marcus	Small, William
Cryer, Bob	Litterick, Tom	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Cunnlngham, G. (Islington S)	Luard, Evan	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	McCartney, Hugh	Stallard, A. W.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	McElhone, Frank	Stoddart, David
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Stott, Roger
Dempsey, James	MacKenzie, Gregor	Strang, Gavin
Doig, Peter	Mackintosh, John P.	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dormand, J. D.	Maclennan, Robert	Swain, Thomas
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Dunnett, Jack	McNamara, Kevin	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Eadie, Alex	Madden, Max	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Edge, Geoff	Magee, Bryan	Thompson, George
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Mahon, Simon	Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Tinn, James
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Marks, Kenneth	Torney, Tom
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Marquand, David	Tuck, Raphael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Flannery, Martin	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ford, Ben	Mikardo, Ian	Watkins, David
Forrester, John	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Watkinson, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Watt, Hamish
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Moonman, Eric	Weetch, Ken
Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wellbeloved, James
Freud, Clement	Morris, Rt Kon J. (Aberavon)	Weish, Andrew
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Movie, Roland	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	White, James (Pollock)
Gilbert, Dr John	Newens, Stanley	Whitlock, William
Golding, John	Oakes, Gordon	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Gould, Bryan	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Gourlay, Harry	Ovenden, John	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Park, George	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Parker, John	Woodall, Alec
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Parry, Robert	Woof, Robert
Hardy, Peter	Penhaligon, David	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Harper, Joseph	Perry, Ernest	Young, David (Bolton E)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Hatton, Frank	Price, William (Rugby)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Henderson, Douglas	Radice, Giles
Hooley, Frank	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Mr. James Hamilton and
Hooson, Emlyn	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Mr. Ted Graham.
Howeils, Geraint (Cardigan)
NOES
Adley, Robert	Burden, F. A.	Eyre, Reginald
Alison, Michael	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fairgrieve, Russell
Arnold, Tom	Carlisle, Mark	Farr, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Carson, John	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Awdry, Daniel	Channon, Paul	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bell, Ronald	Churchill, W. S.	Forman, Nigel
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
Benyon, W.	Clegg, Walter	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Goodhew, Victor
Biffen, John	Cope, John	Gorst, John
Biggs-Davison, John	Crouch, David	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Body, Richard	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Drayson, Burnaby	Gray, Hamish
Brotherton, Michael	Dunlop, John	Grieve, Percy
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Durant, Tony	Griffiths, Eldon
Budgen, Nick	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Grist, Ian
Bulmer, Esmond	Elliott, Sir William	Hall, Sir John

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hannam, John	Miscampbell, Norman	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Moate, Roger	Shersby, Michael
Havers, Sir Michael	Molyneaux, James	Silvester, Fred
Hawkins, Paul	Monro, Hector	Sims, Roger
Hayhoe, Barney	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Sinclair, Sir George
Hicks, Robert	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Holland, Philip	Morgan, Geraint	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Hordern, Peter	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Speed, Keith
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Sproat, Iain
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Mudd, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hurd, Douglas	Neave, Airey	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Neubert, Michael	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
James, David	Newton, Tony	Stokes, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Onslow, Cranley	Stradling Thomas, J.
Jessel, Toby	Page, John (Harrow West)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Jopling, Michael	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Paisley, Rev Ian	Tebbit, Norman
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Parkinson, Cecil	Temple-Morris, Peter
Lamont, Norman	Percival, Ian	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Townsend, Cyril D.
Lawrence, Ivan	Price, David (Eastleigh)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lawson, Nigel	Raison, Timothy	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rathbone, Tim	Viggers, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wakeham, John
Lloyd, Ian	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Wall, Patrick
Loveridge, John	Ridsdale, Julian	Walters, Dennis
Luce, Richard	Rifkind, Malcolm	Weatherill, Bernard
McCrindle, Robert	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Wells, John
Macfarlane, Neil	Ross, William (Londonderry)	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wiggin, Jerry
Marten, Neil	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Maude, Angus	Royle, Sir Anthony	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mawby, Ray	Sainsbury, Tim	Mr. Carol Mather and
Maxweil-Hyslop, Robin	SI. John-Stevas, Norman	Mr. John Corrie.
Mayhew, Patrick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made in lieu thereof to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 17, line 39, leave out from 'section' to 'he' in line 42 and insert:

1. '(a) a person is a member of an association if he belongs to it by virtue of his admission to any sort of membership provided for by its constitution (and is not merely a person with certain rights under its constitution by virtue of his membership of some other association), and references to membership of an association shall be construed accordingly;
2. (b) a person is an associate of an association to which this section applies if, not being a member of it,'.—[Mr. John.]

Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.