HC Deb 29 June 1948 vol 452 cc2131-9
Mr. H. Strauss

I beg to move, in page 11, line 12, to leave out Subsection (4).

This was a matter which we discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. It resulted in the closest Division we had upstairs. I hope that hon. Members who took part in that discussion upstairs will forgive me if they hear some of the same arguments which I advanced. The point is of some importance. This Subsection introduces an Amendment of trade union law which as far as my researches go is unique. It is not found in any other statute. I mentioned that fact upstairs and I think that, as Government spokesmen were not in a position to contradict it then, they are not in a position to contradict it tonight. We may assume, therefore, that my researches have been tolerably complete, and that my statement is correct. This Subsection is, in fact, unprecedented.

What it does is to revive, for the purpose of civil actions for tort under this Bill, the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case. That case is, as hon. Members know, one of the most famous in the history of trade unions, and I had hitherto supposed that the decision was one of the most unpopular with trade unionists. Nevertheless it is proposed here to revive that decision for the purpose of civil actions under this Bill. I may say that not only is it unprecedented, but the Government cannot argue that it is necessary. They would have remedies against every individual member of the trade union even without this Subsection. This Subsection merely enables them to sue the trade union as such.

If I may remind the House briefly of the facts, the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case decided that trade unions might be sued in tort. The House, of course, will realise, I am sure, that the definition of "trade union" now in force is that under the Act of 1913, but similar definitions under earlier Acts were in force at all times that it is material for us to consider. The definition of trade union covers trade unions of employers just as trade unions of men, that is trade unions in the more popular sense, and, provided that trade unions of whichever kind fall within the statutory definition, they are trade unions for all purposes. The House of Lords' judgment in the Taff Vale case said they might be sued in tort. If this Subsection which I am suggesting we should omit remains in the Bill, a trade union can again be sued in tort in cases under this Bill.

The decision of the House of Lords in the summer of 1901 came as an undoubted surprise, not only to those who advised trade unions, but to the legal profession generally. In all the period since trade unions received their legal status under the Acts of 1871 and 1876, there had been no case in which the point had been argued in which a trade union had been held to be liable in tort. In the summer of 1901 the litigation brought by the Taff Vale Railway against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, as the trade union was then known, sought an injunction against the trade union restraining them from watching and besetting a certain station and other relief. Mr. Justice Farwell refused an application on behalf of the trade union to strike their name out of the proceedings. The trade union thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal unanimously decided in favour of the appellant trade union that the action would not lie. An appeal went from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lord, in their famous judgment, restored the judgment of Mr. Justice Farwell, reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and decided that a trade union was suable in tort, that is to say suable for civil wrongs.

If I may remind the House of what will be known, I know, to all students of trade unionism and all trade unionists—and I have no doubt that there are some in the House now—that was followed by two events. First, there was the famous Royal Commission of 1906 which got to consider trade union law. The important report, which was signed by Lord Dunedin, Mr. Arthur Cohen, K.C., and Mr. Sidney Webb, as he then was, emphatically recommended that the law laid down by the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case should not be disturbed. Nevertheless, such was the feeling on this subject that the then youthful Labour Party in the House of Commons prevailed over the then Liberal Government of 1906 and, by Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act of 1906, the judgment of the House of Lords was reversed and thereafter a trade union could not be sued in tort. No great party in the State has hitherto proposed to repeal that Section and to withdraw that immunity of trade unions in tort. Not even in 1926, after the General Strike of that year when many questions of trade union law were considered, was it decided to repeal that Section. In the 1927 statute, which this House repealed some two years ago, Section 4 of the 1906 Act was mentioned in this way: The provisions of the Trade Dispute Act, 1906. the statute of 1927 laid down— shall not … apply to any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a strike or lockout which was declared illegal by that statute. Even that Amendment of Section 4 of the Act of 1906 was strenuously contested by the party opposite, and the Act in which it was contained has now been repealed. At present a trade union enjoys absolute immunity from an action for tort. This Subsection for the first time suggests that that immunity in tort should be withdrawn for the purposes of civil actions under this Bill. Let me make my own position, and I think that of my party, absolutely clear. As hon. Members know, I have never held that trade union law at present is in an entirely satisfactory position or that no further Amendment, alteration or reform will be required, but I do hold very strongly—and I believe many hon. Members opposite will share this view—that if trade union law is to be altered it should be altered after the greatest possible consideration and in a Bill devoted to that purpose.

9.45 p.m.

It should not be altered piecemeal by an odd provision in an odd corner of a misnamed Monopoly Bill. At the present moment, if there is to be such piecemeal revision of the law, it will be extremely awkward for trade unions and their advisers. If, as occasionaly happens, some ill-advised person starts an action in tort against a trade union, the legal advisers of the trade union can at once, in interlocutory proceedings, cause the name of the trade union to be struck out of the proceedings. The absolute immunity is of great practical value. If this Subsection is not to be removed, as I propose, then in every book dealing with trade union law and Section 4 of the Act of 1906, that absolute immunity will have to be qualified.

I suggest to the Government in all seriousness that they would be well advised to accept this Amendment and to withdraw this Subsection. They will lose nothing but a certain convenience; their right of action against all persons and corporations against whom they wish to have a right of action will remain. They will lose nothing except the right of action against the trade union itself, but, whether the Government accept my Amendment or whether they remain as obdurate as they were in the Committee upstairs, I hope by moving it at least to achieve this—that this House shall decide the matter with its eyes open. If the House wants to set this precedent, it will do so, but it should not be under any illusion about the meaning of the precedent which it will be setting. This Subsection which I am asking the House to omit would have no meaning whatever except on the basis that the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case was a good and wise decision, which, for the purposes of this Bill, they wish to restore. I hope the House will consider whether that is the precedent which they really wish to set.

Mr. Turton

I beg to second the Amendment.

Some hon. Members of the Standing Committee will recollect that not only hon. Members on this side but also hon. Members of the Government side asked the Government to reconsider this Subsection very carefully, because it was setting a very dangerous precedent in trade union law. Ever since 1906, this principle has been enshrined in trade union law—that a trade union is not suable in the courts. I gather the object of the Government in this Subsection is not to hit the trade unions, but the trade associations. If it is necessary to have trade associations suable in the courts, I suggest that this is not the right way of doing it by altering the whole of trade union law and practice, but that they should find another way which would not infringe this great principle, for which the trade union movement has fought for 42 years.

Mr. Belcher

Despite the rather fervent appeals which have just been made, in which I thought undue emphasis was laid on the danger to the trade union movement in so far as workers' organisations are concerned, when, in tact, we are not in this Bill concerned with employees' organisations, but with employers' organisations—

Mr. H. Strauss

That does not prevent the precedent.

Mr. Belcher

—1 am going to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is incorrect. We are not trying to alter trade union law by the back door. All we are doing in this Subsection is to put the various types of employers' organisations—the trade unions of employers—and the bodies corporate on an equal footing for the purposes of this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) outlined some of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act, and it is true that Section 4 of that Act provides, amongst other things, that action against a trade union, whether of workmen or of masters, or against any members or officials of that trade union—if such an action is brought in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the trade union—shall not be entertained by any court. This Subsection, however, would not necessarily apply to all civil procedures brought against an employers' trade union or the members thereof in respect of alleged contraventions of orders made under Clause 10 of the Bill, since each case, more or less, will differ in nature and some might be held not to be actions in tort.

Mr. Strauss

May I put one point to the hon. Gentleman? What he says may conceivably be right, but for those actions he is now describing this Subsection does not help him at all. The only point of the Subsection is to say that, where the action is in tort, it shall lie, notwithstanding Section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act.

Mr. Belcher

What this Subsection does—and I am confident that hon. Members on this side at any rate will support the point of view I am going to put very briefly indeed—is to make it possible for employers' trades unions, which the Commission is likely to investigate, to be treated in the same way as other organisations or associations. There is no reason whatever why a trade union of employers should be in a possibly more favourable position because of this Subsection than any other association of employers. I hope that will appeal to hon. Members who are interested in employers' associations which are not registered trade unions. It is quite unfair that an employers' association which is a registered trade union, and its members, should be more favoured than any other type of employers' organisation, and that is why we insist on retaining this Subsection.

Mr. Strauss

May I put one further point? Unwittingly, the Parliamentary Secretary has made a false point. Any other employers' association, unless it happens to be a corporate body, will not become suable in tort as a result of this Subsection. There will still be a difference between an un-incorporated association that is not a trade union and an unincorporated association that is a trade union.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 60.

Division No. 250.] AYES. [9.54 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Gilzean, A. Murray J. D.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nally, W.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Naylor, T. E.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Grenfell, D. R. Neal, H. (Clay Cross)
Alpass, J. H. Grey, C. F. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Oldfield, W. H.
Attewell, H. C. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Pargiter, G. A.
Austin, H. Lewis Gunter, R. J. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Awbery, S. S. Guy, W. H. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Ayles, W. H. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss A. Hale, Leslie Peart, T. F.
Baird, J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Perrins, W.
Balfour, A. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Barton, C. Hardy, E. A. Popplewell, E.
Battley, J. R. Harrison, J. Porter, E. (Warrington)
Bechervaise, A. E. Haworth, J. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Belcher, J. W. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Pritt, D. N.
Benson, G. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Proctor, W. T.
Berry, H. Hewitson, Capt. M. Pryde, D. J.
Beswick, F. Hobson, C. R. Pursey, Comdr. H.
Bing, G. H. C. Holman, P. Randall, H. E.
Binns, J. Hoy, J. Ranger, J.
Blackburn, A. R. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Rankin, J.
Blyton, W. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Rhodes, H.
Bottomley, A. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robens, A.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Bowen, R. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Royle, C.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Sargood, R.
Bramall, E. A. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Scollan, T.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Jenkins, R. H. Segal, Dr. S.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Johnston, Douglas Shackleton, E. A. A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Sharp, Granville
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Burden, T. W. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Simmons, C. J.
Burke, W. A. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Skeffington, A. M.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Keenan, W. Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Callaghan, James Kendall, W. D. Skinnard, F. W.
Carmichael, James Kenyon, C. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Champion, A. J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Chetwynd, G. R. Kinley, J. Sorensen, R. W.
Cobb, F. A. Lang, G. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cocks, F. S. Lee, F. (Hulme) Sparks, J. A.
Collindridge, F. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Steele, T.
Collins, V. J. Lewis, T. (Southampton) Sylvester, G. O.
Colman, Miss G. M. Lindgren, G. S. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Cook, T. F. Lipson, D. L. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Logan, D. G. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Corlett, Dr. J. Longden, F. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Daggar, G. Lyne, A. W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Daines, P. McAdam, W. Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) McAllister, G. Tiffany, S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) McEntee, V. La T. Timmons, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McGhee, H. G. Titterington, M. F.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGovern, J. Tolley, L.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Deer, G. McKinlay, A. S. Turner-Samuels, M.
Delargy, H. J. Maclean, N. (Govan) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Diamond, J. McLeavy, F. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Dumpleton, C. W. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Viant, S. P.
Durbin, E. F. M. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Walker, G. H.
Dye, S. Mainwaring, W. H. Warbey, W. N.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Watkins, T. E.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Mann, Mrs. J. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) West, D. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Ewart, R. Middleton, Mrs. L. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fairhurst, F. Mitchison, G. R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Field, Capt. W. J. Monslow, W. Wigg, George
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Moody, A. S. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Forman, J. C. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Mort, D. L. Willis, E.
Gibson, C. W. Moyle, A. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Wise, Major F. J. Yates, V. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Woods, G. S. Young, Sir F. (Newton) Mr. Snow and
Wyatt, W. Younger, Hon. Kenneth Mr. George Wallace.
NOES.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C. Raikes, H. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Hogg, Hon. Q. Robinson, Roland
Barlow, Sir J. Jennings, R. Ropner, Col. L.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Lambert, Hon. G. Sanderson, Sir F.
Bennett, Sir P. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Birch, Nigel Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Snadden, W. M.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Bower, N. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Teeling, William
Clarke, Col. R. S. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Turton, R. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Walker-Smith, D.
Drayson, G. B. Marples, A. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Drewe, C. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Fraser H. C. P. (Stone) Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Nutting, Anthony Willoughby de Eresby. Lord
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Orr-Ewing, I. L. York, C.
Grimston, R. V. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Pickthorn, K. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Haughton, S. G. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Mr. Studholme and
Major Ramsay.

Question put, and agreed to.