INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

7.08 p.m.

The Chairman: We are still on clause 51.

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

In page 20, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or to".

With your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to talk about all the other amendments - Nos. (iii) to (vii)* - because they are all involved in the same principles.

• The amendments read as follows

(iii) In page 20, lines 9 and 10, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or".

(iii) In page 20, line 12, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or".

(iv) In page 20, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or".

(vi) In page 20, line 21, to leave out "Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or the".

(vii) In page 20, lines 31 and 32, to leave out "informed by the Minister or by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister or is"

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Rajah: Clause 51 primarily deals with the Commissioner's powers to inquire into complaints. Sub-clause (5) makes it possible for any person to complain to the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, or to the Commissioner that a trade union or person bound by an award has committed a breach or non-observance of any term of an award.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my point in moving this amendment is this: where there is a statutory civil servant charged with the carrying out of these functions, I feel it would be much better to let him carry out his duties under the Ordinance rather than for the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister to be involved in personal individual complaints. If it were a matter of policy, or a matter that affected public interest or affected a section of the public, then I think it would be right and proper that the Minister should be brought into the picture. But here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an individual complaint from somebody who is aggrieved by an award. The statute provides machinery whereby that grievance can be inquired into by the Commissioner, as he is the person charged with that duty. In the circumstances, I see no reason whatsoever, other than political, for bringing the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister into the picture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will look at clause 49 of the Bill which reads:

"Any trade union or person bound by an award who has committed any breach or non-observance of any term of an award shall be guilty of an offence...",

there are several safeguards of which a person aggrieved by an award can avail himself. Under clause 49, it is made a criminal offence, and under clause 51 (5), the Commissioner is charged with the duty of inquiring into a complaint to see whether such an award has, in fact, been broken. Mr Speaker, Sir, other than to complicate the issue, it could serve no useful purpose to let three persons have the handling of the particular complaint, when eventually the complaint will be directed, to the Commissioner for inquiry. Would it not be better for the Commissioner himself to go into the complaint and then hold an inquiry? If there has been any breach, perhaps action might be taken under clause 49, or the Commissioner himself might take action under the particular clause. My own view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that once an award has been made and machinery provided to enquire into complaints, particularly when that is a criminal offence, it is highly undesirable for the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary not to come into the picture.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, this clause deals specifically with the case of private agreements which arise out of collective agreements. It is considered not right and proper that a Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary should be deprived of the powers which are granted to an official of the Ministry, particularly in the Ministry of Labour and Law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in cases where this sub-clause (5) applies, the complaint is usually made by the aggrieved person - the complaint that, say, his employer is not giving him the terms of an agreement which arose out of a collective agreement between the employer and the trade union which represented him. In that case, surely it should be open to the aggrieved person to make his complaint either to the Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Commissioner for Labour. It may be a dispute between him and his employer as to whether the award in the collective agreement is applicable to his private contract of service. In that situation, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be the duty of the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Commissioner for Labour to refer the matter in dispute to the Labour Court. Under this clause, we are not, in any way, attempting to side-step the procedure that is laid down with regard to the bringing of actions before the Labour Court. That will go on.

7.15 p.m.

All that we seek to do here is to obtain the powers to initiate action. If an aggrieved person comes to us, we will accept his complaint. We will find out what he wants. If we can, we will summon his employer, and if the employer agrees that there is a breach of the award, we will then get his consent to meeting the request of the aggrieved person. If not, and if there is an issue of fact to be decided between them, we will send the matter to the Labour Court. That is all we are seeking to do under this clause. Again I would say that there is nothing sinister in all this.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, the word "sinister" is in the mind of the Minister for Labour and Law. Sir, what I am saying is not sinister. What I am saying is that it is highly undesirable for the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to get into the fray at this stage. "Award" includes an award not only of a collective agreement made by mutual consent, but an award made by the Court of Industrial Arbitration. That is how it is defined in the defining clause. `"Award" means an award made by the Court'. A collective agreement, in certain circumstances, when it is registered with the Court becomes an award. So that the award spoken of, Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 51 is an award which might either be given, in the first instance, by the Court or a collective agreement registered with the Court. What is the necessity for the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary when the Commissioner exists and the Commissioner has Assistant Commissioners who, under the Labour Ordinance, have similar duties and functions to perform?

I beg to submit, with respect, that one does not want to give these inquiries, resulting from alleged breaches of awards, a political flavour. It could well be, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary could be subject to political pressure of a kind that the Commissioner cannot and would not be subject to.

The Prime Minister: I am unable to accept the last argument submitted by the Member for Farrer Park. The reason why my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, is insisting that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should be among the persons to whom complaints can be made is because, from his experience in the last eight months, he has discovered that union leaders and union members not unnaturally have preferred, in most cases, to make their complaints to the Parliamentary Secretary for reasons which are not difficult to understand. The permanent officials are there. They were permanent officials to the last Government. They are permanent officials there today. It is a fact which we have to accept. The point is that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary can participate in any of the judicial processes to decide whether or not there has been a breach. All that the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary can do is to ascertain whether or not there is a matter to be referred to the Court for such action as can proceed under the Ordinance. These powers are just the powers to summon either the union or the employer to answer truthfully questions relating to the existence of an agreement. The enforcement of any breach of observance of an agreement is not in the hands of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Commissioner. Whilst, politically, I would say that it is not a duty which the Minister would want to perform all the time, there are situations where it is more judicious for the Minister himself to make such inquiries. It is, I think, a common practice. When the Member for Cairnhill was the Minister for Labour and Welfare, not very infrequently he had to deal with employers and unions not only in relation to alleged breaches of awards but to a host of other important matters relating to employers and unions. There is nothing novel or unusual in these provisions.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I take it that the Member will not be moving amendments (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii)*?

• see footnote at cols. 293-4.

Mr Rajah: I am not moving.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 and 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54-

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

In page 22, line 28, at end, to add-

"(5) Where the Court punishes as contempt a failure by a person to comply with an order of the Court, that person shall, during a period of two years from the date on which the punishment is imposed, or such lesser period as the Court may determine, be ineligible to be nominated for election as an officer of a trade union or a branch of a trade union or a federation of trade unions or to act as such an officer.

(6) A person who acts as an officer of a trade union, or a branch of a trade union or a federation of trade unions while he is ineligible by reason of subsection (5) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction by a District Court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to both such imprisonment and fine and for a second or subsequent offence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding three years.".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained that it is the intention of Government to negative the provisions of clause 56 and to add to clause 54 the provisions of clause 56 which places trade union leaders under restriction against participation in trade union activities if they so conduct themselves as to commit contempt of court. These sub-clauses give effect to that intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55-

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

In page 22, line 29, to leave out from "Court" to the end of line 43 and insert-

"that a number of members of a trade union sufficiently large to form a substantial part of its membership refuse to accept employment in accordance with an award the Court may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, by order cancel or suspend for such period as it thinks fit all or any of the terms of the award so far as the award applies to or is in favour of the trade union or its members.".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment we propose will enable the Court to cancel or suspend the operation of an award in more limited circumstances than the Bill originally proposed. The power will be exercisable only in the event of members of a trade union seeking to pick and choose those parts of an award which are acceptable, and repudiating those parts which are not acceptable. The Court has the discretion, in these circumstances, to direct that the whole of the award be accepted. If not, the whole of the award would be cancelled.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56-

Question proposed, "That clause 56 stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman: Does the Minister wish to add anything further?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already given the reasons why it has now been proposed that the Question that clause 56 stand part of the Bill be negatived, and I do not propose to add to what I have already said.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 56 accordingly disagreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59-

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

In page 25, line 9, after "interest", to insert-

"or that, having regard to the provisions of any relevant award made by the Court or made under the industrial Courts Ordinance or of any relevant collective agreement registered under this Ordinance or made before the coming into operation of this Ordinance and not so registered, the trade dispute or matter or part thereof ought to be dismissed".

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the considerations in clause 29 (2), which are relevant when the President decides whether he will direct that the trade dispute be referred to arbitration, that is, the clause which we have proposed to delete and which has been deleted already, are also relevant on the question whether the claims should be dismissed under clause 59 (g). For this reason, these provisions have been added to clause 59 (g).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill,

Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62-

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

In page 25, line 38, after "union", to insert-

"or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the reason for this amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the amendment has already been moved and accepted by the Opposition that there shall be no "trade union of employees", and all reference to a trade union could only refer to a trade union of employees. Therefore, I think that amendment tacked on to paragraph (a) may be making things more confusing. There is no longer a trade union of employers being a party to negotiations. That has been accepted by the Government, as a result of representations by the trade unions. Therefore, there is no such thing as a trade union of employers before the Arbitration Court. Such being the case, therefore, reference to any trade union could only be to a trade union of employees.

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Has the Member for Cairnhill read the amendment right? The amendment reads "of a trade union of employees" and not "employers". We are on amendment (i).

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That is right, Sir. What is amended is that, being a trade union, it "may be represented by an officer of the trade union". This obviously means "trade union of employers". But there is no longer any trade union of employers.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have the right to congratulate myself on having followed the argument of the Member for Cairnhill. His argument is that since any trade union that appears before the Court must be a trade union of employees, we can safely leave out the words "of employees". But I do not wish to go into the intricacies of draftsmanship. I do not think the addition of the two words "of employees" really makes the legislation other than proper. It might be that even though in the definition the unions referred to are unions of employees, there is no great loss of space by the addition of the words "of employees" in just one reference to it in this amendment.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take all the sorties from the Opposition Members lying down. To prove my point conclusively, I will refer them to clause 62 of the Bill where the distinctions are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 62 (1) (b) reads:

"In proceedings before the Court a party or intervener-

(b) not being a trade union, may be represented-

(i) by an employee of that party or intervener; or

(ii) by an officer of a trade union of which that party or intervener is a member.".

As this is the case, where the party is an employer, he can be represented. The employer, when a party, may be a member of a trade union, and if he is, then he can be represented by an officer of the trade union to which he belongs. That is the position, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister for Labour and Law is rather tired. Far from the Opposition following the debate unintelligently, I think it can congratulate itself on having followed it intelligently. I think what my colleague the Member for Cairnhill means is this. Paragraph (a) of clause 62 (1) reads:

"being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union;"

and the proposed amendment reads:

"or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union".

So therefore, the amendment there seeks to draw a distinction between "a trade union" and "a trade union of employees". But what the Member for Cairn-hill said was that in an industrial dispute there cannot be a trade union of employers. Therefore, the amendment does not seem to read right.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to allow that remark to pass. It is incorrect to say that the amendment does not read right. It might well be that those with all-embracing minds can argue that since no trade union of employers can appear before the Court, therefore, the words "of employees" become superfluous. But I do not see why that should in any way detract from the merits of the Bill and the drafting of the Bill.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not detract from the merits of the Bill one bit. But what we are now saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, follows on what the Minister for Labour and Law has told this Assembly, that, as a result of discussions with trade unions of employees, he has considered that, in so far as proceedings under the proposed Ordinance are concerned, there cannot be a trade union of employers as defined in clause 2. I take it that the Minister will be dealing with that in due course. In any event, he has told the House that so far as an industrial dispute is concerned, it will be between a union of employees and an employer. If that is correct - it must be correct, because the Minister for Law has spoken - then what is the meaning of "being a trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union" and, in addition to that, it talks about "a trade union of employees"? Therefore, what precedes the trade union must be the "trade union of employers", and the Minister himself has said that there cannot be a trade union of employers so far as this Bill is concerned.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There cannot be a trade union of employers who are parties before the Court. Clause 62 (1) envisages a situation where, in proceedings before the Court, a party or intervener - and there is nothing to prevent a trade union of employers from intervening.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that however hard he and his colleagues try to tire me, 1 am not going to be tired. Mr Speaker, Sir, the provisions of clause 62 have been carefully looked into. That clause deals with the position of parties before the Court. As a matter of note, Sir, it provides for representations before the Industrial Arbitration Court, and it deals with the representations of the parties before the Court. Now, the employer may be in a trade union and he may be represented by an officer of the trade union. Mr Speaker, Sir, where he is not in a trade union, if, say, an employer can participate in collective bargaining, his employee could appear. The employer could under (ii) on the next page, page 26 of the Bill, be a member of a trade union, in which case he would have the advantage of using the services of an officer employed by the employer's trade union to represent him before the court.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we wish to make this distinction - the distinction between the single employer who has the advantage of that service (that is, his representation before the Court by an officer of the trade union to which he belongs) and the service that we wish to provide to the employees' unions. When we appoint the Industrial Relations Officers, we want to make these officers available only to the employees' unions. That is all that we are seeking to do. That is why we make this distinction to distinguish that position from the position that is indicated in clause 62 (1) (b) (ii). I do not know whether the Member for Cairnhill wants us to make a further amendment to make this service also available to employers.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Minister has great difficulty in understanding what we are trying to say. Perhaps he can help us who are trying to understand what he is saying if he will explain to us what is meant by the words "trade union" in line 37 of paragraph (a) of clause 62 (1)?

Mr Byrne: It means a "trade union of employees". Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated that this clause deals with the representation of parties, and under the collective bargaining procedure in clause 16, the only parties to a collective agreement or to arbitration proceedings would be the single employer and the trade union of employees -

The Prime Minister: Or the intervener.

Mr Byrne: Or the intervener.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Trade union of employers.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect to the Minister, I think the difficulty has arisen because clause 62 has been framed in the way it has been framed. It is because the original concept was that the words "trade union" should include "trade union of employers" as well as "trade union of employees". But we have since then departed from that concept and we now say that "trade union" shall mean "trade union of employees". Until the Minister takes it upon himself to redefine "trade union" on page 3 of the Bill, we will be constantly running into this difficulty. Since clause 62 (1) (a) reads "being a trade union", we must necessarily go back to page 3 to find out what "trade union" is and whether "trade union" is defined as "trade union of employers" or "trade union of employees". Therefore, as the definition now stands, "being a trade union of employers may be represented by an officer of the trade union of employers;" or "being a trade union of employees may be represented . That is how it should read, Mr Speaker, Sir. An amendment is brought in to draw a distinction between a trade union of employers and a trade union of employees. If I may take it upon myself to redraft this paragraph, in view of the changes, I think all that need be done is to say:

"In proceedings before the Court a party or intervener-

(a) being a trade union of employees...,

and that would have solved the problem.

The Chairman: No doubt the Minister will consider that point when he deals with the new definition of "trade union".

7.45 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have made the position clear. A trade union may be represented by an officer of the trade union, and we go on to add this provision in the amendment that we propose - "or, in the case of a trade union of employees, by an officer of the trade union or by an Industrial Relations Officer selected by the trade union".

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are making the distinction. We show quite clearly the difference between the provision of clause 62 (1) (b) (ii) which deals with the representation of employers by officials of their trade unions, and the services that we propose for the union of employees.

Amendment agreed to.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 26, to leave out lines 3 to 7 inclusive and insert "but may be represented by an advocate and solicitor if so desired.".

Sir, I tabled this amendment because I felt that to deny the trade unions a chance to be represented by an advocate and solicitor to present their case concisely, clearly and effectively in the Arbitration Court would be to make it difficult for them. I did say, Sir - and it has now been accepted by the Minister for Labour and Law - that not all trade union officers are well trained and capable of handling the cases of their unions before the Arbitration Court. And past experience has shown that where a trade union has the benefit of the services of an advocate and solicitor to represent it either in conciliation proceedings or in a Court of Inquiry or in an Industrial Court, that union has the advantage of having its case very well presented. That union, with the help of an advocate and solicitor, would come out of the conciliation proceedings in a much better light than if it were denied the right to engage an advocate and solicitor to look after its interests. In fact, Sir, it has been the practice - in fact, the custom too - in previous years that in trade disputes of this kind, unions were wont to call upon the services of advocates and solicitors who put the benefit of their knowledge and experience to use when presenting the unions' case. I do not wish to suggest that, because those advocates and solicitors referred to by me earlier in my speech are no longer in a position to render such assistance to the trade unions, other advocates and solicitors should be so denied. I know that that is not the case. The way I look at it is that the Government, in moving this particular clause, says that it must be an officer of a trade union. They do not want lawyers; they do not want professional agitators. Therefore, clause 62, so far as it goes without the proposed amendment, is good. I would have accepted that, I would have said an additional amendment "of an industrial officer to assist a union" would be good but now - I must range over the proposed amendment of the Minister - the Minister in his proposed amendment, which is to be moved after my amendment, throws the gate wide open to people who may not be honestly and sincerely connected with the trade union movement. I refer, Sir, to professional agitators. If we want to close the gate to advocates and solicitors from helping trade unions in presenting their case, we must also close the gate to all those people who are not trade unionists or who are not closely connected with the trade union movement.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Cairnhill knows, the intention is to exclude advocates and solicitors from taking part in the collective bargaining process or from the representation of interests before the Industrial Arbitration Court, except in cases where there are proceedings for contempt of the Court's authority or where the State Advocate-General has intervened, The reason why Government has decided to exclude advocates and solicitors from these functions is that, though it is accepted that they are skilled in the orderly presentation of arguments before the Court and in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, this very fact would give the proceedings a forensic atmosphere which would put a lay advocate at a disadvantage; so that the side that does not have Counsel feels at a disadvantage. We have pointed out that it will be necessary to make proceedings arising from collective bargaining before the Court as informal as they can be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is also the question of the costs of professional representation. The employer's side can well afford these costs, but in most cases they are prohibitive as far as the employees' unions are concerned. What we are seeking to do is to extend to the arbitral stage that spirit which prevails in the bargaining process rather than to introduce Counsel, forms and the sort of approach that is common in courts of law, where technical points are usually taken in the course of arguments.

We believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the purpose of this legislation should be to encourage the officers of trade unions on either side to handle their own members' affairs. If they receive this en- couragement, they will thereby increase their own prestige in this field. It is quite obvious that they will not be able to develop this skill and prestige if, as soon as the case that is handled by them during the collective bargaining stage is passed on to the Court of Arbitration, Counsel are brought in and they take over from them. That is not the way of increasing their prestige and of developing the sense of responsibility that we want to see developed in these union officials.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, union officials on both sides who meet round the bargaining table and in the Court develop a habit of dealing with each other on friendly terms, and they will, by close association, be able to have confidence in each other and to establish close friendships. In dealing with each other, they will be able to feel that they are in industrial relations together. Say you get trade union officials of employers and you get trade union leaders appointing their own officials, Now in the bargaining process and so on, there will be very hard words passed across the table, but they will get to respect one another in these discussions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the exclusion of advocates and solicitors only extends to those who appear as such. There is nothing to prevent an officer of a trade union from being a professionally qualified man, but special provision has been made in this legislation to prevent a practising lawyer from having himself appointed as an officer of the union for a particular case so as to get round the provisions directed against professional representation. Such a person must have relinquished his practice for six months before he meddles in these matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that paid agents are also excluded. This is to stop people starting a new group of industrial advocates - a kind of new industrial legal profession.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are indeed very surprised that this amendment should be made to the Bill, because, in the eyes of the Minister, it looks as if advocates and solicitors who participate in the work of reconciling the different parties in a trade dispute are highly undesirable people. It also implies that in previous years, the Hon, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law himself, by their; example, proved that they were highly undesirable. If they believe that their top leaders performed an important function in trade disputes in previous years, there is no reason therefore why their fellow advocates and solicitors should at this time be barred from conducting the activities which they did before, Although it would bar a former Chief Minister from activities in the trade union field, we on this side have decided that, in the interest of industrial peace, the door should also not be open to others who would make it more difficult for industrial peace to be achieved, But when the amendments proposed by the Government open the door to anybody, by whatever name, to come in and interfere in trade disputes, I think it is wrong to exclude advocates and solicitors. If it is the intention of Government to bring about an amicable atmosphere conducive to an early settlement of disputes, and that advocates and solicitors should not be included to prolong negotiations, I think the next amendment by the Minister* should not come in. The public, Sir, may infer that this is an attempt by the Government to prevent the return of a former Chief Minister into the public limelight.

• The amendment reads as follows

In page 26, lines 9 to 11, to leave out "a person in the employment of a trade union as a full-time secretary or assistant secretary" and insert-

"for the purposes of any proceedings before the Court a person appointed by the body, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the union is entrusted, to represent the trade union in those proceedings".

The Prime Minister: It might interest Members on the other side to know that my instincts were to stand up for the rights of advocates and solicitors, on the theory that a case is best presented when you have two trained, skilful and disciplined advocates rapidly crystallising the issues in a case, My view is that that should be the position. However, I have been persuaded by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, who informs me that far from helping to crystallise the issues at dispute, they very often befog their clients. He is firmly of the opinion that it is more likely that justice will be done if both employers and unions, through being naive, honest and sincere, put forward points - both good or otherwise - in their respective cases, and that an intervention from the sometimes skilful and sometimes less skilful advocate only helps to prolong and be devil a proper and rapid conclusion of the hearing of an arbitration.

Sir, I would hate to admit that on principle we might save time by excluding advocates and solicitors -

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill, and beg leave to sit again tomorrow, 13th February.

Mr Speaker: So be it.