TRADE UNIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on Question-[13th August, 1959]:

"That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

2.43 p.m.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in every human society in any country, there are good as well as bad elements. Similarly, among trade unions, Sir, we also believe that there are good and bad unions. Therefore, we in the Opposition are of the same mind as the Minister for Labour and Law in the desirability of eliminating trade unions which confuse the minds of the workers and give rise to unnecessary trouble. But, Sir, in trying to uproot the bad unions, it may happen inadvertently that a few good ones are also uprooted and therefore, in the interest of justice, it is desirable that these aggrieved trade unions, if they so desire, should have a chance to appeal against decisions made by the Minister - I stress again, inadvertently perhaps or without the full knowledge of the circumstances.

Sir, I am sure that the Minister himself will be the first to admit that being human he is not infallible, and therefore the request is that there be a means provided so that instead of the decision being final, the aggrieved trade union, which still believes that it should be allowed to exist, should be allowed to make its appeal to a court of law. Sir, I do not believe that this is the view of the Government: but one of the Members did say yesterday that, by means of this Bill, certain trade unions which support an opposition party might have their registrations cancelled or withdrawn. I hope, Sir, this is not the real intention of Government, because if that is so then I think the main purpose is lost and people would be thinking along lines of politics rather than along lines of what is just for the different trade unions.

Sir, I would like at least to read out from the booklet issued by the People's Action Party, entitled "The Tasks Ahead", Part 2, page 25, paragraph 3, the following:-

"But at the same time we must all remember that if we seek industrial justice with a vengeance, there will be no industrial peace. And a chronic state of industrial unrest means wrecking the economy. We must take into account the interests of the workers and of the whole population. For if our economy is damaged, the whole population will suffer."

Sir, I am glad that the "Chief" Minister speaking here could see the whole problem from different angles, and he could see that, in the interests of Singapore and the economy of Singapore, there must be a balance somewhere. And I believe that in strengthening-

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not seem to recollect that a Chief Minister is now in the Assembly.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it happened that this was a speech delivered by the Chief - sorry - Prime Minister. Sir, there is sometimes the tendency, in a capitalist regime, for employers to have their way all the time. But the pendulum has swung away from that; there is the danger of the pendulum swinging to the opposite extreme - where, the trade unionists feel that they are the bosses, and the employers are the employed. Therefore, the strengthening of the trade unions must not be to gain the just rights of the trade unionists and also to be the new boss over the employers. Now, that, Sir, would be bad for our economy. As we know, many of the employers have already transferred part of their capital to the Federation, and we read in the papers recently that the Federation is having a boom because of the confidence that the economy and the stability of the Federation have inspired in some investors. Sir, we desire that part of that capital should come back, and we can only see that happen by giving investors the assurance that whereas it is the intention of the Government to protect the rights of the workers, it is not their intention to intimidate the bosses. I feel, Sir, that in that light, we may be able then to produce conditions in Singapore to enable the prosperity of the country to be shared all round among the workers. Sir, subject to these qualifications, we support the Bill.

2.50 p.m.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. I believe that everyone will agree with me on this. Society is always improving, especially now that we have come to this stage. Therefore, the things that were done before are not suitable for the present society. The Member for Cairnhill has pointed out that in 1941 the Trade Unions Ordinance was introduced. This is just like a car of more than ten years old. It is not suitable for present use at all. Therefore, we have to improve it. In these few years, the old Ordinance has produced many tragedies, and we hope that these tragedies will not recur.

About capital, we have to make amendments.

Yesterday, some Members mentioned a secret ballot. That is not the basic remedy. Principally, the object of amending this Ordinance is to improve the situation. This Ordinance is of old age, and I wonder why the previous Government had not altered or amended it. They had allowed the formation of splinter and yellow trade unions for the purpose of looking after their colleagues. The previous Government had not properly amended this Ordinance. But today we are supported by the people and we are responsible to them to amend the errors of the Ordinance. Yesterday, the Member for Farrer Park pointed out that the Ordinance should be in accord with the British Trade Union Act. I would point out that in any country when they are going to introduce a Bill, they have to consider the circumstances prevailing in the society in that country. For this reason, we must amend this Ordinance in the proper way. And then it will suit the people. If the Members opposite were not so obstinate, they would not be so lonely as they are now. This is a lesson to them.

Yesterday, the Member for Cairnhill pointed out that he agreed in principle with the amending Bill, but he did not agree with clause 5. I feel that is not right. At present what we want to look after is our nation. For this reason we must work for the future of our country and do everything properly. Our friends opposite us have continually said they are not opposing us, but actually they are.

What I have said are facts. We have to do things in a very practical way, for the welfare of our country and for the future. Only in this way can we achieve a merger with the Federation of Malaya, and also maintain good relations between the people of Singapore and the people of Malaya. This is my own opinion, and I fully support this amending Bill.

2.55 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which is before the House now is long overdue, and the sooner it is implemented, the happier it would be for the workers and trade union leaders in Singapore. The existence of yellow and splinter unions is not only detrimental to the interests of workers, but it is also detrimental to the interests of the country. This Bill is designed to correct past mistakes and to assist and strengthen the trade union movement in this country.

Singapore has progressed politically, and it is only proper that the trade union movement should also progress with it. In the past, trade union leaders have always been warned to keep away from politics. But genuine trade union leaders, from their own experience, know that sometime or other they have to seek the support of politicians to achieve results. Those leaders who do not believe that politics is part of trade unionism usually perish.

In the past, the role of the union leaders was confined to protecting and improving the welfare of its members. But with the attainment of self-government in Singapore, union leaders have a more important role to play. They not only have to look after the interests of its members, but they also have to look after the interests of the country as a whole. It has been said and feared that this Bill may be used to close rival organisations which do not share the same political beliefs as the Government. These fears are completely groundless because the members can still join existing unions, and if their leaders can muster sufficient support, they will eventually take over the leadership of the unions. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I can say that the sooner this Bill is implemented, the quicker can the workers and trade union leaders in Singapore look forward to a period of hope and promises.

3.01 p.m.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have already heard my colleagues discuss the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. All of us know that in a country, the most important people are the labourers and workers. We have many workers and labourers to develop the country. Therefore, they can form strong and powerful trade unions.

Yesterday I heard the Member for Cairnhill say that when the Ordinance was introduced in 1941 in Singapore, it was under a colonial regime and under a colonial Government. They were not paying attention to democracy. But we must have consolidation and have a strong Government. We can see that if only a few people form a trade union - like a shop with only ten or more than ten people - how can they represent the welfare of the workers? In this case, that union cannot really represent the welfare of the workers. Therefore, these few people can have connections with the employers and achieve their own ends.

The facts are before us. Under the Rendel Constitution, the old Government formed many yellow unions. Yesterday our Minister for Labour and Law said that strikes had occurred in the past. They formed many unions during that period, and many opportunists and politicians made use of these unions to further their own interest. They used to suppress and weaken the strength of the employees. You can see an example of the Hock Lee bus strike. This shows that they had close connections with the colonial Government.

Mr Speaker, before the P.A.P. Government came into power, our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had said that when we came into power we would amend this Ordinance. For the welfare and interest of our workers, we have to do it. Under the Rendel Constitution, the former Government had connections with the colonial Government. Therefore, I fully support the amendment.

3.06 p.m.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed (Bukit Timah): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, if we follow the developments of the trade union movement in Singapore, we will, without hesitation, come to the conclusion of unanimous support for this Bill.

We are debating this Bill for the second day. In principle, I see that although some Opposition Members have expressed support for the Bill, there are others whose support is conditional. I think they are fully conscious that they are forced to support this Bill for the reason that they are fully aware that, if they choose to ignore the interest of the labour movement, then after the next five years they will find that they will have to vacate this Assembly. This neglect on the part of the past Government in not looking after the interest and welfare of the labour movement can be seen in the fact that they now represent only a minority in this Assembly.

I wish to say this to the Member for Farrer Park who has stated that he is not an expert on the labour movement, although he has shown that he is quite an expert on the labour law in England. I wish to point out to him that Singapore is not England. The way the workers in Singapore live is not the same as that of the workers in England. Therefore, there is no necessity to compare Singapore with England. What is good in England may not be necessarily be good in Singapore. It is possible that what is good in Singapore may not be good in England. This fact should have the attention of Members. We are heading for full independence, and we must be ready to take responsibilities and stand on our own feet.

The Member for the Southern Islands has advised the Minister for Labour and Law to exercise care so that the labour movement will not be involved in politics. I wonder, because, if one follows the labour movement or political developments closely, I think the one cannot be separated from the other. I think the labour movement must be closely related to political developments because, if any action by the labour movement fails, then they will have no alternative but to fight through political channels. On top of that, we should realise that 90 per cent of the people of Singapore today comprise the working class who are fighting for their destiny and for a common aim and interest; that is, for the establishment of social justice based on common interest. The working class must struggle together. If their struggle fails, then it is clear that they must fight through political organisations because the labour movement which has been suppressed by the employers will have to depend on a democratic Government who can protect and safeguard their rights. This is the labour movement's connection with politics. But if the Government is represented by the capitalist class, then they cannot look after or maintain the interest of the working class as a whole. This is proved by what has happened to the previous Government.

We remember the instance quoted by the Member for the Southern Islands, that the Minister for Labour and Law should be careful in implementing this Bill. The Member has advised that the implementation of this Bill should not be influenced by political motives. But I think this will not happen because we have received a mandate from the people, and we will uphold that mandate as a basis for the struggle of the Government.

Concerning the Malay union in the Harbour Board which was mentioned by the Member for the Southern Islands, I wish to explain that if in a labour movement there exist a Malay trade union, an Indian trade union and a Chinese trade union, and so on, then Singapore will be faced with a split in the labour movement, and it is obvious that the employers will exploit the situation to create dissension amongst the various races. For instance, if the Chinese workers are on strike, the employers will make use of the Malays, and vice versa. The Malay trade union in the Harbour Board, I know, is not representative of the Malay workers there. That union can be said to represent only tens of workers out of hundreds of Malay workers who are members of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association. From the point of view of the labour movement, the establishment of splinter or yellow unions which are nurtured by employers will consequently result in the labour struggle in Singapore facing a dark future.

I very much regret the fears expressed by the Opposition Members in this Assembly at the possibility that this Ministry will in future wipe out the small or yellow trade unions. It seems as though such unions have connections with those in this House who have expressed fears. As the Malay proverb, literally translated, says, if it is not because of the padi that is ripening, the weaver-bird will not bother to build its nest on a low-hanging branch. I am not accusing directly, but possibly the sentiments expressed could be said clearly to show that there is a connection.

If it is just to look after the development of a healthy trade union movement, then we have no hesitation in passing this Bill and moving towards a more just society on this island. With the passing of this Bill, we hope that the trade unions and the labour movement on the whole will be heading towards a healthy state of affairs.

3.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Law (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday my colleagues took quite a long time to elaborate with facts and figures how splinter and yellow unions were formed, how they are used to frustrate the workers' movement, and how this affects the workers' interests. We know that this should have happened under the previous Government because it was a government representing the colonial and vested interests. It did not like to see a strong trade union movement in the country. In order to protect the colonial vested interests, the Government not only had to preserve those oppressive rules and laws, but also indirectly to participate in activities detrimental to the trade union movement.

Mr Speaker, that era has passed and we have now come into a new one. To achieve the object which we enunciated during our election campaign - to maintain industrial peace with justice - we must see that the workers must be in a strong bargaining position, otherwise they will always be oppressed and exploited by the employers. Therefore, Mr Speaker, since the previous Government had infected the trade union movement with the cancer of yellow unionism, it is up to this new Government to wipe out the disease, otherwise, the trade union movement will be killed by it. In order to achieve that object, the Government has decided to amend the present Trade Unions Ordinance.

Of course, the Opposition knows very well that there is no ground for opposing us, and the more they talk against this movement, the more will they expose themselves. They agree in principle to the amending of the Ordinance but object to one clause which says that appeals shall be dealt with by the Minister. Mr Speaker, when the Minister for Finance introduced the Finance Bill or the Audit Bill, the Opposition immediately jumped up to oppose the powers sought to be given to an elected Minister. We know that the Members opposite were in the past used to bestowing powers on colonial and expatriate officers but now they hate to bestow powers on an elected government.

Other than on the powers for the Minister, the Opposition cannot criticise us - it has no valid criticism to make on the amending Bill.

I support the Bill, Mr Speaker.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have - listened to the representations against clause 5 of the Bill and I must say, Mr Speaker, I am completely unmoved. This clause provides that the decision of the Minister on an appeal under section 16 the Ordinance is to be final and not to be called into question in any court. I have already told the House that it will be the object of this Bill to reduce the number of unions to more reasonable proportions, bearing in mind that at the present time there are less than 30 per cent of the working population organised in unions and there are as many as 226 unions to cater for this very small proportion of the total working population. It will be necessary, therefore, Mr Speaker, for the Registrar to use his discretion extensively if some order is to be brought out of the present chaos. I have already said that the new power of cancelling the registration of yellow or splinter unions is one that can only be properly exercised by an executive body. And I repeat the statement which I made earlier - that the machinery of the court is, in the opinion of the Government, quite unsuitable to deal with such matters, which hinge so much on questions of policy and executive discretion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if order is to come out of the present chaos, it is necessary, I would say vital, that we should have the means to deal adequately with the present situation. It is, therefore, our purpose in proposing the amendments to clause 17 of the Ordinance to shut out appeals which are bound to be of a "wanton and niggardly" character, to use the words of the Member for Farrer Park.

I should like to point out here that the Government has not proposed any amendment to subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of section 15 of the Ordinance which lay down the procedure which the Registrar is to follow when deciding to cancel or withdraw the registration of a union. We have left these provisions of section 15 untouched because we want the procedure of notice, opportunity to show cause and adequate inquiry, to be followed before the Registrar makes up his mind one way or the other.

The Prime Minister has stated - in his speech at Geylang Serai - that the cancellation of registration of yellow unions and splinter unions will only be made after due investigation to establish the truth, or after secret ballot has shown that the majority of workers support or oppose, as the case may be, a union in their sector of employment. And this assurance has also been written into the chapter on trade unions in the P.A.P.'s policy statement entitled, "The Tasks Ahead", which has become the bible for the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park expressed great surprise that the Government is attempting to shut out appeals to the High Court when the trade union enactment in the United Kingdom, which forms the model for our local Trade Unions Ordinance, provided for such appeals. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to remind the Member for Farrer Park, and I think he needs constant reminding about this, that conditions in the United Kingdom are not the conditions we find here. There is a very much larger proportion of the working population organised in trade unions in the United Kingdom and there is not to be found there the multiplicity of tiny unions that we find in Singapore, so that precedents in the United Kingdom are not necessarily good precedents for local conditions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already pointed out that I have been advised that the form of words which are used in our proposed amendment to section 17 of the Ordinance does not preclude recourse to the High Court in certiorari proceedings. Quite apart from the right of appeal which may be denied by statute or by an Ordinance, I am advised that the High Court has, in its prerogative jurisdiction, an inherent right to supervise and review the acts of persons and of subordinate bodies which exercise quasi judicial functions. Where it can be shown that a person or subordinate authority has refused to exercise or has improperly exercised these functions under circumstances which amount to a denial of natural justice, recourse can always be had to the High Court in certiorari proceedings.

Mr Speaker, as I have already pointed out just now, it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with the existing procedural provisions of the Ordinance leading to the withdrawal or cancellation of the registration of unions, as these provisions clearly provide for adequate notice, for an opportunity to show cause and for the holding of art inquiry before an order can be made by the Registrar. To shut out the prerogative jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters, it must be shown, I am advised, that the acts of the Registrar or that of the Minister on appeal are purely ministerial in character.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the present procedural provisions of section 15, which the Government has left untouched, it would be difficult to argue such a case before the High Court. I hope, Sir, that this clarification will set at rest the disquiet, whether real or not, I am not sure, which the Government's proposed amendment to clause 17 of the Bill has caused to the Members for Cairnhill and Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker, I do move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Byrne].

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.31 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

In page 2, line 6, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

Mr Speaker glanced up at the Minister.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

In page 2, line 9, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

The Chairman: When I glanced up, I thought the Minister wished to expand on the reasons for the alteration. I take it that they are obvious?

Mr Byrne: They are obvious.

The Chairman: We will take the first amendment -

In page 2, line 6, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: We will take the second amendment as having been moved

In page 2, line 9, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen", unless any member wishes to say anything on the lines in between.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to seek clarification from the Minister. In clause 2, the proposed section 10 (b) of the Trade Unions Ordinance reads:

"that the objects, rules and constitution of the union do not conflict with any of such provisions and are not unlawful;".

It is only when the objects of a trade union are not unlawful that the Registrar may register the trade union in the prescribed form. I therefore seek clarification as to the meaning of the proviso. If the objects are unlawful, surely the Registrar is not going to register the union, and then later on, just because he has wrongly registered a trade union, the proviso is put in to say that if the union's objects are unlawful, therefore the registration shall be void. Does it mean that the Registrar may commit a mistake in registering a trade union when its objects are unlawful, or has he the power to register a trade union when the objects are apparent to him as unlawful?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the words used in the proposed section 10 (b) read as follows:

"that the objects, rules and constitution of the union do not conflict with any of such provisions and are not unlawful;".

The proviso in section 10 of the Trade Unions Ordinance reads as follows:

"Provided that if any one of the objects of such trade union is unlawful, the registration of the trade union shall be void."

In one case, there is a conflict with the provisions of the Ordinance and, in the other case, with the objects of the union itself.

Tun Lim Yew Hock rose -

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member speaking now on the principle of the clause?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No, on clarification of this proviso.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I still cannot understand. If its objects are unlawful, a trade union cannot therefore be registered. The Registrar does not register a trade union whose objects are unlawful and then, in order to protect that wrong registration, the proviso is inserted. Surely if the objects are found at a later stage by the Registrar to be unlawful, the Registrar has the power to cancel the registration. That proviso is very confusing.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill has not directed his mind sufficiently to the words of the proposed section 10 (b) which read:

"The Registrar, if he is satisfied -

(b) that the objects, rules and constitution of the union do not conflict with any of such provisions and are not unlawful;".

"such provisions" relate to the provisions of this Ordinance and of the regulations made thereunder. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, it is so and the Registrar has got to be satisfied when he registers the trade union in the prescribed manner:

"Provided that if any one of the objects of such trade union is unlawful, the registration of the trade union shall be void."

A trade union may have objects which are not unlawful although they may be in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance and of the regulations made thereunder.

Mr Rajah rose -

The Chairman: Still on clarification?

Mr Rajah: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear from the draft of the new section 10, Mr Speaker, that the proviso to the existing section 10 of the Ordinance is in conflict with the proposed section 10 (b). If it is in conflict, there seems to be no purpose in having the proviso there, and it should be deleted. Now the proviso, Mr Speaker, Sir, reads:

"Provided that if any one of the objects `of such trade union is unlawful...".

The proviso merely deals with unlawful objects. Now, the proposed section 10 (b) reads:

"The Registrar, if he is satisfied -

(b) that the object... are not unlawful;". The proviso also talks of unlawful objects. Section 10 (b) also says that if the objects of the trade union proposed to be registered are unlawful, then the Registrar shall deny registration. How then, if the Registrar has complied with section 10 (b), does the need for the proviso arise?

The Chairman: Order. I think we cannot proceed any further on these lines. If hon. Members on the Opposition Benches were dissatisfied with the proviso, they ought to have given notice of an amendment deleting it. If that notice had been given, the question would have been proposed on the amendment and there could have been a debate. I think it is now too late for us to consider the proviso. I have no doubt that the Minister will try to satisfy hon. Members after this sitting or at some other convenient time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move.

In page 2, line 37, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen",

And

In page 2 -

The Chairman: Order. If no hon. Member wishes to speak on the lines that intervene between all three amendments as shown on the Supplementary Order Paper, I propose to take those three amendments en bloc. The Minister will no doubt wish to move these three amendments en bloc:

(i) In page 2, line 37, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

(ii) In page 2, line 40, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

(iii) In page 2, line 44, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

Mr Byrne: Yes.

The Chairman: In that case, I will just put the first amendment to start off with,

In page 2, line 37, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Similarly, amendments (ii) and (iii):

In page 2, line 40, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen",

and

In page 2, line 44, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

The Chairman: On clause 4, there is a Note which reads:

In page 3, line 6, to leave out "fullstop" and insert "full-stop".

That will be done.

Perhaps the Minister will take the same course and move all the amendments up to (v) en bloc?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

(i) In page 3, line 11, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

(ii) In page 3, line 14, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

(iii) In page 3, line 17, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

(iv) In page 3, line 20, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen";

and

(v) In page 3, line 23, to leave out "workers" and insert "workmen".

The Chairman: We will deal with amendments (i) to (v) in the same way, unless any hon. Member wishes to speak on the lines that intervene. We will take all the five amendments together.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, line 25, to leave out "cancellation" and insert "certificate of registration".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Question proposed, "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

3.45 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, we raised objection to this particular clause during the Second Reading and the replies we received from the Government Benches contained certain allegations that we were against this clause because we were interested. Perhaps the hon. Members do not understand the meaning of parliamentary democracy. To every question, there are two points of view and the Opposition's point of view is opposite to that of the Government. It is because of the allegation by an hon. Member of this House that because the Opposition has raised objection of certain clauses in the Bill, that such objection is unreal or is spurred on by self-interest or is of a character that is not good at all, and because of the feeling that the Minister may have that the Opposition is unreal, that we have to speak again during the Committee stage of this Bill to say that we are still objecting

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, Wednesday, 2nd September, 1959.