§ (1) The funds of a trade union shall not be applied, either directly or in conjunction with any other trade union, association, or body, or otherwise indirectly, in the furtherance of the political objects to which this Section applies (without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects), unless rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing—
- (a) That the funds of the union are only to be applied in the furtherance of any such political objects if the furtherance of those objects has been approved as an object of the union by a resolution for the time being in force passed on a ballot of the members of the union taken in accordance with this Act for the purpose by a majority of the members voting; and
- (b) That any payments in the furtherance of those objects are to be made out of a separate fund (in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union), and for the exemption in accordance with this Act of any member of the union from any obligation to contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance
1356 with this Act that he is unwilling to contribute; and - (c) That a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union (except in relation to the control or management of the political fund) by reason of his being so exempt, and that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union.
§ (2) The political objects to which this Section applies are the expenditure of money—
- (a) on the payment of any expenses incurred either directly or indirectly by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or to any public office, before, during, or after the election in connection with his candidature or election; or
- (b) on the holding of any meeting or the distribution of any literature or documents in support of any such candidate or prospective candidate; or
- (c) on the maintenance of any person who is a Member of Parliament or who holds a public office; or
- (d) in connection with the registration of electors or the selection of a candidate for Parliament or any public office; or
- (e) on the holding of political meetings of any kind, or on the distribution of political literature or political documents of any kind, unless the main purpose of the meetings or of the distribution of the literature or documents is the furtherance of statutory objects within the meaning of this Act.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "rules, to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of 1357 Friendly Societies, are in force, providing—
(a) That the funds of the union are only to be applied in the furtherance of any such political objects if."
This Amendment deals with an important point which was raised in Committee which I said I would consider, and in respect of which I pledged myself to bring up words on Report for the consideration of the House. I feel quite confident when the House appreciates the object of the Amendment we shall all agree it should be made. We impose upon the trade unions, as the Bill stands, the obligation, first of all, to pass rules, and, secondly, as a necessary consequence of one of the rules they wall have to pass, to take a ballot. It was pointed out in Committee, and I think it was a very pertinent criticism upon the Bill, that we are first of all asking the trade unions to go to the expense of calling a meeting to pass rules and then asking them to take a ballot on the question whether the union should engage in political objects. It would undoubtedly be better that they should first of all take a ballot as to whether they were in favour of extending their sphere of operations to political objects, and then, if they were of that opinion, that they should pass rules. The whole object of this Amendment therefore is to save expense by enabling them to take a ballot on the main principle and then, if they are agreed, rules will necessarily be passed afterwards. I intimated that was my view and that T would bring up words to carry it out, and I think the whole of the Committee were agreed it would be the right course to pursue.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONThe argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the horse should be put before the cart, and that it will be less expensive than putting the cart before the horse.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. PETOI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), to leave out the word "voting" ["majority of the members voting"], and to insert instead thereof the word "union."
This is only the alteration of a word, but I frankly admit it involves a very considerable principle. Trade unions up to a certain time considered, and apparently rightly considered, they wore entitled to 1358 take any political action they saw fit in furtherance of their general objects. We all know that position was successfully challenged in the Courts of Law, and the object of this Bill now is to allow trade unions to embark on a legalised and legitimate career of political activity. It appears to me that makes a very marked change in the position of trade unions, a change which will undoubtedly be very far-reaching. It is not a change which is unanimously agreed to by all the existing members of trade unions, and there is no reason to suppose it will be agreed to unanimously by all future members of the wage-earning classes who may earnestly desire to seek the protection of trade unionism in all matters of their daily life and to obtain the benefits to be derived from trade unions and the advantage of the power of corporate action when they think fit to take corporate action in the advancement of their rights, or in the endeavour to improve their position. It is not by any means clear that all those who would desire to join a trade union would agree to one particular form of political action or to one particular form of politics, which is really what it amounts to. It therefore seems essential we should be satisfied there is some large body of trade union opinion in favour of taking that action, particularly as we know that action has-been successfully challenged, and as we believe there is no unanimity as to engagement in politics being one of the necessary weapons of trade union armoury.
The view of hon. Gentlemen opposite is really that in certain contingencies they should be able to take from their armoury one weapon, the weapon of a strike, and that in other conditions they should be able to use a more refined weapon of warfare and take political action. They say those two weapons are part of one policy, and that all good trade union members should be prepared to forward trade union interests by whatever method their leaders think is likely to be the most efficacious. That is what I understood to be really the position. There was a general opinion on the part of hon. Members opposite that it was really quite superfluous to have any right of choice in the matter at all. They went, in fact, so far as to move an Amendment to omit the words, "And that contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union," in Clause 3. They desired, even if any right of exemption was to be given 1359 to existing members, that it should certainly not extend to any future members who might join. I want to put the case perfectly clearly and perfectly fairly. If political action is only one of the weapons in the trade union armoury, one they can use just when it best suits the circumstances of the case, then there is a great deal to be said for the view that all trade unionists should conform to this exact form of political action; but it docs not seem to me the matter can possibly be left I there. There is no doubt this particular form of political action means the inclusion of a large number of Members in this House, and, if certain members of the community, not a few, but millions, are to be practically compelled as a condition of their entering a trade union which they enter for the purpose of mutual protection and advancement to support by a weekly or monthly levy a particular form of politics with which a large number of them are not in agreement, then I say we alter the whole system of representation in this House, and the question cannot be confined to the supposed interests of trade union members. We create a position in which a large number will be enabled to enter the House owing to their expenses being paid, and will be able to maintain themselves here in so far as they are not maintained by an unwilling public paying them £400 a year for their services. If that is to be the position, then I say we alter the whole system of representation in this House.
Members are supposed to be returned by people who agree with them or by the majority in their constituencies who agree with the policy and the politics they advocate. If people are to contribute to the return of Members of Parliament with whom they are not in agreement, then I think it is very necessary we should at least ascertain there is a majority of the members of the trade unions who have taken the trouble to vote one way or the other on this all-important subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, quoted a large number of cases in which only 5,000 out of 100,000 members had taken the trouble to vote upon some important question in the trade union. One can multiply these instances over and over again. The contention underlying this Amendment is that this goes far beyond what is the legitimate object of 1360 a trade union or what is in the interests of trade union members. On this subject, at least, the public at large and the community in general have a right to expect that if a trade union wishes to enter into this legalised field of political action they should at least ask that something over one-half of the members—in fact, a majority of the members of the union—should decide in favour of that all-important policy. Surely that is not putting the question very high. We asked in Committee that there should be some substantial majority in favour of it. We were met with no line of argument against the principle of the Amendment; we were only told it would be difficult to carry into effect. We want to put no difficulties in the way of trade unions. On the' other hand, we say that it is in the interests of trade unions, if they are going to take this action, action which undoubtedly will be strongly criticised by those who are not in entire agreement, perhaps, with them, or with their methods or with their aims and objects, that, at any rate, the community at large should have the satisfaction of knowing that at least a majority of the people immediately concerned are either in favour of taking the action in question or at least take sufficient interest in it to register their vote when a duly advertised ballot is called for. It seems to be amazing that one should have to speak for a moment on such a question as this.
Here we have a veritable revolution in our politics. Hitherto, with the exception, I admit, of action that may have been taken under a misinterpretation of what was the actual effect of the law as it then stood, with that exception Members returned to this House have been returned to represent their individual constituencies. We know when this change is made there will be two methods of representation. There will be a legalised form of contribution which will be practically compulsory under the provisions of this Bill, and we are making essential changes by which individual members of the community will have the right, by means of a small committee, of practically controlling the contributions of an enormous membership, the vast majority of whom joined for purely trade purposes, and without any direct intention of entering into politics. It is surely an extraordinary state of affairs that we should have to argue that before taking such a departure at least one-half of the members of the trade union concerned 1361 should take enough interest in the subject to vote "Aye" or "Nay" on the question of policy. I confidently commend the Amendment to all Members who are in favour of free politics and of liberty of action on the part of the individual in whatever political action he may chose to take. I would only add this: I feel perfectly certain, whatever rules may be incorporated in the Act as laid down and prescribed as being the rules that ought to be adopted by trade unionists, whatever may be done in that direction, once this departure is taken as a matter of practice and as a practical question, it will be incumbent upon every member of a trade union, whether he agrees or not, to contribute to the political fund of his union. I am certain that, not in the long run, but very soon, that will be the state of affairs, and I give hon. Members opposite credit for knowing that. It is one of the reasons why they are ready to accept this Bill with what are, from their point of view, certain imperfections which deny them complete liberty of action, because they know, as practical men of the world, that in the working out it will prove practically obligatory on every member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund.
The amount may be small; it is said it is so small in most cases as to be not worth while making a fuss about or to emphasise any difference of opinion. But if we leave in a provision of this kind we shall find it will become a matter of course, and we shall have a large body of people in this country who joined for one purpose, a great organisation of trade unions, and who find that in practice it is to their interest not to make themselves peculiar but to go with the accepted custom and pay whatever the contribution may be, perhaps a shilling a year, to the political fund. From the point of view of the actual money involved, it is not a matter of very great importance; it would not rob anyone. But I want to point out that this is a question of principle. Are we to establish this system which will, in future, deprive the people of their liberty and will practically impose a political test, if not in regard to political opinion, but a test which will go thus far that unless a man holds very strong principles and is willing to make himself an exception to his fellow workers he must do something which may be against his inclination, or, in some extreme cases, against his 1362 conscience? I say this is not an ordinary question at all. If it were a question whether trade unions should authorise a strike or terminate one, or take any other action in the course of everyday business, it might be held that it did not matter much whether many or few chose to vote; that would be the business of the members of the trade union. But I say that the community at large have an interest in this question; they have a right to know if a majority of the trade union members are either in favour or against this new departure, and that they take a sufficient amount of interest in it to fill up their ballot papers. That is all we ask for by this Amendment, and it is with the utmost confidence, from that point of view, that I put this matter before the House.
Mr. SHIRLEY BENNI beg to second the Amendment.
I am a strong believer in organisation; I am a strong supporter of trade unions. Trade unions in the past—in the days when they had scant experience and sometimes inefficient officials to run their business on good, sound, business lines—met with great opposition. But they are a necessity, not only for workmen, but for the proper working of business. Therefore, I want to see workmen join trade unions, and it is for that reason that I second this Amendment to-day. Men who have common interests, who work together in trade, join their trade union, and you are bound to find among such men Conservatives, Radicals, Socialists, and even men who have no politics at all, men who, in the ordinary administration of their union, are willing to leave the work to their political leaders or to those who take an active part in the organisation. But when it conies to getting power from the State, surely the State ought to know if the majority of the men of these unions want that power to be given to them. After the power has been given by the State, then it will be a matter for the union; it will be a matter for the official responsible to the members in accordance with the rules. But it certainly must be right for the State to ask to be informed whether a majority of members, including all shades of political opinion, wish to have power given to them to enter into the political arena. It is for that reason I second the Amendment. I believe it will strengthen and not weaken trade unions.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment 1363 went very far in the direction of a Second Reading speech. I do not complain of that. It opened up a very large question, and I want to point out to the House that what we are really considering is the point whether or not it shall be necessary under this Bill that there shall be a majority of the members of the union in favour of extending its political objects, or whether it is sufficient to have a majority of those who take part in the ballot. I was struck by one observation of the hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech. He said "we want to put no difficulty in the way of the unions." I cannot conceive anything which would put a greater difficulty in their way than the passing of this Amendment, and I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member can seriously suggest otherwise. It would mean taking a union with a membership of 100,000, that over 50,000 would have to declare themselves in favour of the proposal before they could take, advantage of the privileges given by this Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAs the Bill stands, it is a majority of the members voting, but the hon. Gentleman by his Amendment wishes to leave out the word "voting," and insert the words "of the union." I think, therefore, I am correct in my definition of the position.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI could understand the argument if it were to the effect that it is unsatisfactory to have a very small number of members of the trade union voting. But the proposal of the hon. Gentleman goes very much farther, and if his Amendment be carried, it would certainly spoil the benefits which the unions would be entitled to obtain under this Bill. You never get a majority of more than half the members of the union voting in favour of a proposal. Under the proposal of the hon. Gentleman there might be such a thing as legalised compulsion. But this Bill prevents compulsion; it gives a man the right of exemption; it also takes care that when there is a ballot there shall be secrecy; that there shall be the right to vote given to every single member, and a fair and reasonable opportunity of voting. That is how the Bill stands as it emerged from 1364 Committee. I submit to the House that they could not have a more satisfactory proposal in regard to the ballot, and that it really provides all that is necessary. I quite appreciate it being said that the ballot must be secret. For that purpose we have introduced words into the Bill. I can understand it being said there must be a fair opportunity given to every man to vote. We have given that.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONThat is qualified by the words "if reasonably possible."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, and does not understand why those words were inserted. I will tell him in one moment. All these matters, the right to vote, fair and reasonable opportunity to vote, and the secrecy of the ballot are fully provided for. The only reason for introducing the words referred to by the hon. Member was that it was pointed out that in the Sailors' and Firemen's Union the men were not always able to vote. I submit that we have done all that we ought to have done when we have given a man all these opportunities. If he does not choose to avail himself of the right given to him by the ballot, surely he has no right to complain. He is not even penalised when we have done that. We do not say that if he does not choose to vote he shall lose his rights, but we say that if he does not choose to take part in the ballot he must let the majority decide it. After the majority has decided it, then it is still open to a member of the union, who objects to paying, to claim exemption. Then he does not have to pay into the political funds. I ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and I submit that, having regard to what has happened in Committee and to the framework of the Bill as it has emerged from Committee, there is no need for any such Amendment as this, and that the only effect of the Amendment must be to cripple and paralyse the trade unions in their activities. I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's desire. He disclaimed any such wish, and I accept his statement. It amounts to this: If you have a ballot taken of the members of the union who, I will assume, are in greater part indifferent—that is an assumption against the views of those who represent trade unions—assuming that the majority do not care one way or the other, if that is the case, why should not the matter be decided by the majority? It in 1365 no way imposes upon them the obligation to pay a penny, but merely says that those who do care to vote may vote for or against it, and can by the ballot come to the conclusion, by a majority of those voting, that there shall be this activity in the particular trade union. If that is to take place, I submit there is no ground for any of the fears which the hon. Member has put forward. He seemed at one time to be travelling very far indeed, and suggested what would happen in this House, as if it mattered in the slightest degree to the House except, of course, as to the powers the House confers on a trade union by its legislation. I think it is an important Amendment. If it is passed it will destroy the value of the Bill to members of trade unions, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in it.
Captain CLAYI cannot agree with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot see that the difficulties he describes will be so great as he would lead us to believe. In ordinary elections we have something like 95 per cent, voting upon the issues, and if members of trade unions are genuine in their desire for political action, surely they would take the trouble of registering their votes in the ballot. I will not go into the details of how few have voted in the past on this particular question. I would point out that if two unions wish to amalagamate they have to obtain a two-third's majority in order to secure amalgamation. If they are able to get a two-third's majority in order to do that, as they have done for years past, it is not asking too much that half the members of a union should vote on the question whether or not they wish to pursue political objects. A large number of these men join their union not for political, but for industrial purposes. They are practically forced to join their union in many trades or else have no living whatever. Therefore I think it is necessary that they should have the additional safeguard provided by this Amendment. It is one of the vital principles of the Bill that the question of political representation should be thoroughly gone into by the unions before they adopt it. It is a good thing for the members of the unions themselves that they should be forced to take some intelligent interest in political questions. If they think it really does not matter and they are perfectly content to allow perhaps 5 per cent, of the union to vote, it is a very bad thing indeed, and I think that the members of a union had far better vote 1366 in larger numbers in order that they should secure the representation they wish. As we have said on many occasions, we have no wish whatever to delay this Bill in any way, but we do wish to secure every possible protection for the minority who are forced to be members of a union. For these reasons, among others, and because this is one of the Amendments I regard as most important, I sincerely hope it will be carried.
§ Mr. BRACEI think the Attorney-General was much more generous to the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) than he deserved, when he said that he thought the hon. Member sincerely did not wish to injure the unions in their political activities. I have not the slightest hesitation in declaring that the hon. Member intends, if possible, to prevent trade unions exercising political activities.
§ Mr. PETOOn a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Member entitled to impute motives to hon. Members for what they say in their speeches?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives. I do not think he is quite doing that, but is judging the Amendment by its effect.
§ Mr. BRACEI hope I have not trespassed upon the well established traditions of the House by imputing motives, but I do resent, and very strongly resent, the insulting language that is being used, and the offensive reference that is invariably made to the salary of £400 a year in every kind of speech that the hon. Member makes, and other hon. Members make, who engage in these attacks upon ourselves as representing trade unions.
§ Earl WINTERTONWho has made insulting remarks?
§ Mr. BRACEIt is not our fault that we have not wealthy parents, and that we are unable to depend upon the resources of the family rather than upon our own resources.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONOn a point of Order. The hon. Member began by imputing insincerity to my hon. Friend. He is now going on to discuss the payment of Members. I submit that both are irregular.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI certainly deprecate discussion on the payment of Members. It is true the subject was not very sufficiently discussed when it was brought in, but that 1367 is no reason for discussing it on every possible occasion now. Perhaps the hon. Member will drop that topic.
§ Mr. BRACEI apologise to Mr. Speaker and to the House, and I hope that other hon. Members who take part in this discussion will try to realise that there is a feeling that it is not quite fairly playing the game with us to make such references to the £400 a year. Turning to the Amendment, if the hon. Member who moved it had not been a member of the Grand Committee I should have been disposed to think that he had not read the Bill, but inasmuch as he was a member of the Grand Committee, and took a considerable part and much of our time there in speaking upon Amendments and moving them, he really must know that this Bill does not give us power to compel any man, against his will, to pay the Parliamentary levy or contribute toward the maintenance of a Member of this House. As a matter of fact, that is my great complaint against the Bill. I think we ought to have the power, but inasmuch as we are not given the power, we are entitled to ask hon. Members not to declare publicly that we have in this Bill an instrument by which men, whether they like it or not, will be compelled to contribute for political purposes.
§ Mr. PETOWhat I said was that whatever the Bill might say, I appealed to hon. Members opposite whether, as practical men, they did not know that it would become the rule that all members of trade unions would, as a matter of fact, in future contribute to this political fund.
§ Mr. BRACEI can only say that I have no confidence that the Bill will enable us to do that. If I had, I should welcome the Bill much more enthusiastically than I do. The Amendment is intended to cripple, if possible, trade unions from taking part in political activities. The Bill as at present constructed gives first the non-political man the power to vote down the project. When the ballot is called he may, if he likes, take part in it, and endeavour to prevent his union taking part in political activities altogether. But if he fails in his effort to prevent the union taking part in political activities, then the Bill gives him the protection of allowing him to contract out or to be exempted. One would have thought that every principle of equity was met in such a proposal. First, the regulations under the Bill create the opportu- 1368 nity for every man to cast his vote. Secondly, having cast his vote, although doing so against the project, if the majority of the Members voting decide for political activities, then there is a further protection to the man who is not in favour of political activities—he may contract himself out. The hon. Member now comes along with a further Amendment, which says that it must be a majority, not of the men voting, but of the union that is to determine whether that particular society shall or shall not engage in political activities. The hon. Member is a great protagonist of individual liberty. By what right does he say that we must compel every man to take part in voting? We do not want that liberty. We say that in a free country like this the question whether a man will cast a vote or not is a matter for him to decide, but if he refuses to exercise his right as a member of the community to cast his vote, assuredly that ought not to be used as a reason for preventing other people who want to engage in political activities from partaking of that opportunity. I do not want to put it offensively. A Noble Lord earlier this afternoon interposed an interjection that I am never very ready to accept anything that he proposes. I wish hon. Members would give us a chance to accept something worth having. It is because all their proposals are intended to weaken the power of the unions for political representation that, against our wish, we are placed in opposition to them, and it is because we think that upon no critical or fair argument or fair treatment ought this Amendment to be accepted that we welcome the declaration of the Attorney-General that the Government do not see their way to accept this. Why are trade unions always to be treated, and why are the members of trade unions always to be treated as if they were not entitled to the same recognition as other people? In Parliamentary Elections you would not declare an Election void because the majority of the people entitled to vote had not taken part in it. After all, all that we ask is the same principle as is in operation in connection with the public life of this nation, and neither hon. Members opposite nor anyone else ought to ask us to take anything less.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThe hon. Member is so frank upon this subject that he almost disarms criticism. He repeatedly made it clear in Committee, and he has made it perfectly explicit to-day, that if he 1369 had his way the position of the union and the workers would be that every man should be compelled to join a union, and having joined a union should be compelled to contribute to political funds whether he approved or disapproved of the manner in which they were expended.
§ Mr. CRAIGIn other words, that the rights of the minority should be callously ignored. The position is perfectly frank, and it would be a useful thing that the workers of the country who are invited to become members of unions should appreciate that that is the measure of liberty which, in the opinion of one of the leaders, should be attributed to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have never disguised it."] Do I understand, then, that there is not a Member below the Gangway opposite who does not think that the workers of the country should be compelled to join the unions, and, having joined the unions, should be compelled to contribute money to political purposes, independent of their approval or disapproval? Is that assented to by the whole of the Labour party in this House? I hear no word of dissent, so I assume it is so. I am quite sure that hon. Members, who are in full force to-day, would have the honesty and the courage to get up and say so if they dissented from the statement which their interruption invited me to make. That being so, it is good that the workers of this country should know that not merely the hon. Member (Mr. Brace), but the whole of the Labour party in the House, think that they should be forced into the unions, and that, having been forced into them, they should be forced to contribute money for political purposes. I am quite certain some of the workers of the country would be surprised to know that the whole of the Labour party in the House of Commons takes that view. The hon. Member suggests that we want to force men to vote. I assure him he is mistaken. We want them to be at liberty to vote whether they want it or not. It is the hon. Member who wants to bring pressure upon the workers of the country. We want the workers of the country to have the same freedom that the greatest individualist would claim for himself. It is because we are in favour of the freedom of the worker that this Amendment has been proposed. It is because the hon. Member is opposed to the freedom of the workers that he has expressed the views with which he has favoured the House.
1370 As regards the observations of the Attorney-General, he made us the concession that he did not believe we desired to cripple the unions. It is perfectly right. We owe the right hon. Gentleman our thanks for attributing to us somewhat fairer motives than have recently been attributed by certain less distinguished Members of the party opposite. But while he is quite right in saying we do not want to cripple the activity of the unions this Amendment is not designed to that end. We are dealing here, not with the primary objects of trade unions, but with secondary and subsidiary objects. The primary object of trade unions is to improve the industrial position in this country in relation to wages and conditions of employment. The object which we are now discussing—the political object—is subsidiary and does not form part of the original trade union movement. It is just because it did not do so that the necessity for the introduction of this Bill has arisen. It is because of the real objection of trade unions being industrial, that the Osborne Judgment was declared. Things have marched fast since then, I agree, and the conditions are different now, and it is probably true, at any rate as regards the operations of individual trade unions, that they have done so much that there is little for them to do to-day in the matter of pure industrial trade unionism.
It is developing in two directions—a national, and an international movement—that is one phase, and the other is the political phase. The political phase has been in existence for many years. When you are taking a ballot to ascertain whether or not a trade union shall embark upon political purposes, you are in fact asking the members of the union whether they are going to add to their primary purposes secondary and subsidiary objects, and that is why we think the members of the unions should not be entitled to embark upon these secondary and comparatively subsidiary purposes unless it is the real opinion of the union that it is desirable to do so. I do not understand the observations of the Attorney-General. He says if the majority are indifferent, why should not the minority decide for them? Is not the fairer inference from inactivity that they care so little about it that they do not trouble to attend or to vote, and if that is the fair interpretation, why should the minority who are desirous of the acquisition of political purposes to 1371 impose the right to exercise those powers upon the majority who are too indifferent to claim it? It appears to me that this is neither logical nor sound. These things ought to be pointed out. It is not the majority of the union holding Radical or Socialist or Conservative views, or no views at all. All that the Amendment asks is that there should be 50 per cent, of the people in the union of any or no political colour, all added together, who are sufficiently interested to vote that the union shall embark upon political purposes without regard to what those political purposes may be, and it seems to me a most moderate demand having regard to the step that is being taken, and to the fact that the step is a novelty from the point of view of a union which has not indulged in political purposes before.
The Standing Committee which considered this Bill was careful, when it was considering a similar question of majorities and safeguards for minorities under the Shops Bill—and the House adopted the view of the Committee when the Bill came back—to insert not merely a percentage of voters but a percentage upon the percentage of voters, to make sure that the Bill should not be brought into operation unless there was a real demand for it. You have under the Shops Act to have a percentage of those entitled to vote and then you must have a percentage of those voting, and it is only if you get the prescribed percentage of those voting and of those entitled to vote that you are able to bring the Act into operation. Now, when you come to this Bill, no sort of assurance is deemed desirable by the Government or by hon. Members below the Gangway that there is any real demand in any particular union for the enlarging of the area of its activities. No one has ever heard of a Parliamentary election where there was not a far bigger percentage than 50 per cent, voting. If so, what does it mean if you get less than 50 per cent., and what does the Attorney-General mean by saying you will destroy the Bill if you insist on it? It means that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway do not believe that they could evoke in the general circles of the unions even a half of the active interest which the general population of this country entitled to consider political matters does take. I see no reason why, if politics are to be embarked upon, something like a true reflex of opinion should not be ascer- 1372 tained, and I see no reason why politics should be embarked upon unless there is a real demand, within the limits of any particular union, that that step should be taken.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI am not in favour of the restricted conditions imposed by this Clause upon the freedom of action of trade unions. I have always regarded trade unions as being entitled to as much freedom of action, no matter what their policy or action might be, so long as it was within the confines of the law, as any other association. I entirely differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman when he suggested that political objects were not, and historically had not been, the primary objects of trade unions. If he had studied the history very carefully of the rise of trade unions in this country, he would have found that one of the earliest enterprises upon which they embarked in the distant' forties, and even going beyond that period to wards the end of the eighteenth century, was to obtain Parliamentary representation. It is wholly a misconception to believe that the idea of Parliamentary representation is a modern invention on their part. If the hon. Member who moved this Amendment reflects that all political, and I think nearly all commercial institutions in this country are governed by the principle of the majority of those voting, and that in this House itself it is not a majority of the Members of the House, but a majority of the persons who take part in the vote, who decide great questions of policy, international as well as national—
§ Viscount WOLMERThe quorum is forty.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESForty out of 670. Only the other day we saw hon. Members opposite gladly availing themselves of that principle of voting in this House by attempting by a snap Division to upset the Government against the will of the majority.
§ Earl WINTERTONTwo-thirds of the Members of the House voted.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESBut we are governed here by the principle laid down by the wisdom of our ancestors, and, indeed, so much was the justice of that principle recognised a short time ago that we abolished proxies in the other place. As the Noble Lord well knows, we had a very anomalous and anachronistic system 1373 of voting by proxy in the other House, and people who never attended debates, and who took no part in politics were enabled by proxy to vote on questions which came before the other House. There is, therefore, nothing in principle against deciding by a majority of those voting. Look at it from the point of view of detail. My hon. Friend has pointed out how an artificial majority might be obtained against a proposition that a trade union might embark in politics. Take another great practical difficulty. It may interest the Attorney-General to be informed that I talked to one of his constituents, I believe a supporter, who told me that on a very important question, namely, whether the Borough of Reading should incur large expenditure involving, with the approbation of the Local Government Board, the negotiation of a heavy loan, and involving perhaps an increase of twopence or twopence-halfpenny in the rates, the ratepayers of that municipality were invited to declare their opinion on the matter which had been under discussion for two years, and was in everybody's thoughts, and yet only 20 per cent, of those competent to vote for that proposition among the burgesses and ratepayers voted upon the question. I believe the result was in favour of the proposal for incurring this heavy additional expenditure for great public improvements. That is a clear case. To assume for one moment that the 20 per cent, did not represent the feeling of the ratepayers would be wrong. Undoubtedly, if there had been a strong feeling against making these improvements and obtaining the loan, the ratepayers would have voted against the proposal.
Let us pursue it a little further. If the miners of Durham were invited to vote I do not think there would be any difficulty in getting an actual majority—I do not say which way—one way or the other, because it is a homogeneous trade. The people are all living together, but that is not true of many trades. The members of these trade unions are scattered all over the country. Unhappily, the working population of this country are largely migratory in character. Men engaged in the building trades and other trades are here to-day and away to-morrow, and there would be great difficulty in getting the absolute majority which would be required. But where is the harm? You have hedged this Bill most unreasonably, I think, with restrictions. I believe in the absolute free will of the majority of the 1374 people. I have never regarded it as in law ultra vires for a trade union to embark in politics, but the Osborne Judgment has prevented that view being taken, and, therefore, I, as a lawyer, accept the proposition Where is the harm if a man is against a union embarking on what are termed in the Bill political objects? He is not to be damnified if they do engage in political objects. He is taken care of in this Bill. If that man says, "I shall not subscribe for that purpose," he is not to suffer in his status as a member of the union, and he has not to contribute a penny towards the political objects which the union has in view. I think this Amendment, with all due respect, is futile. I think it would cause a considerable amount of embarrassment and difficulty to many trade unions, and would be most unjust. Therefore I shall vote against it.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONIt is rather difficult for anyone who has not been present at the Debates in the Grand Committee to be perfectly certain of his ground, especially as you may say something in this House which strikes some vein of passion which has been awakened in the Grand Committee of which you were totally unaware. Dr. Johnson said it is indiscreet for a sober man to enter the company and take part in the conversation of those who are drunk. It does seem that some such debate must have taken place in the Grand Committee when this question has so much excited the usually courteous Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace). I have listened most carefully to this Debate with the object of informing myself on what really is the crux of it. I confess not only as a lawyer, but as a man who has lived among his fellows, that there seems to be nothing more reasonable than that when a great change is suggested to a body which has been acting together the change should be approved by a majority of the members when it takes place. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, that principle is already on the Statute Book with respect to trade unions themselves. They require a two-thirds majority for amalgamation, and ordinarily speaking I think any man of common sense and ordinary views would say that it was only natural and proper that before a fresh adventure is taken a bare majority should vote for the change. It is quite true that, as the Attorney-General pointed out, in the very clear speech he made at the beginning, that after this ballot has been taken the 1375 dissenters from the view have machinery prescribed by the Bill by which—though not to protest—to absolve themselves from all expense which is the result of that decision. That is a perfectly fair observation, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us, nor did the hon. Member for South Glamorgan tell us, what is the reason for saying that if this Amendment was accepted it would absolutely defeat the whole object of the Bill. In other words, both of them affirm, but neither of them gave any reason for stating, that if the Amendment was inserted not a single trade union would be able to embark on political activities.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIn most cases.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONInmost cases. They say it would practically wreck the Bill in the vast majority of cases. I must do the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Atherley-Jones), who is a lawyer, the credit of having given a really substantial reason which was not given by his predecessors in the Debate, and which I think is certainly worthy of the consideration of the House. If those who speak for trade unions were to assure me that it is as a matter of fact in very many cases impossible to get at the members, and that this is the best you can do in the way of establishing that the majority are in favour of a certain course, I should hesitate which way I should cast my vote. But we have had no such authoritative pronouncement on the question.
§ Mr. WARDLECertainly that is the reason why we oppose this Amendment so strongly. It is exceedingly difficult in most of the unions to get a majority to vote, and that for the very reason given by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones).
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONSpeaking for myself, I think that is really the point of this case. I think those who ask us not to vote for the Amendment ought to bring forward evidence to show that they are doing all that reasonably can be done. Certainly to anyone like myself it does appear a strange paradox that, while there is a desire in many quarters that trade unions should be allowed to engage in political activities, such great apathy should be shown by those who constitute the majority. I confess I have some doubt in the matter, but perhaps we might have some further light in the course of the Debate.
§ Mr. BARNESLet me assure the right hon. Gentleman that as a simple matter of fact we never do get a majority of members of any union to vote on anything, not even on strikes. Sometimes in extreme cases, where a vote is taken locally, you may get a majority, but taking unions of a national character whose members are spread from one end of the country to the other, in such cases you never do, and never can, get an actual majority of the members to vote on anything. The most extreme case which I have in mind was on one occasion when a very large percentage, at least 40 or 50 per cent., of the engineers were involved in a dispute, and when, after a lock-out of some six months, the question of settling that dispute one way or the other came up to be decided, and even then we did not get more than about 37 per cent, of the union to vote. And there is a good reason. The railway men will deal with their own case. Theirs is a fairly obvious case—Sunday work and things of that kind. But take the engineers. We vote only in the branches. Those branches meet about once a fortnight. A man joins a branch in a particular place, and does not care about leaving it. Take my own case. I have been a member of a branch of engineers in Chelsea for thirty years. I have never lived in Chelsea during the whole of that time. I do not go more than three or four times a year to my branch. Consequently it seems that even in normal conditions the average member does not go to a branch except on some extreme occasion, but sends his contribution either through the agency of his wife or one of his children. This applies to all the others as well as to the engineers. But here is something which applies specially to engineers. We have between 9,000 and 10,000 of our members at sea. Those men pay their contributions. They are included in the total roll of members, yet not one in twenty of them ever has a chance of voting at all on anything. Consequently you may take off these nine or ten thousand men.
Another thing is that members are not always at home. Trade union membership is largely made up of the best of the working people, the most skilful of the mechanics of the country in various trades. Therefore these men are being constantly sent out by the various firms for which they work. It is impossible to give the figures in regard to that as in regard to the sea-going men. One never khows. But it is likely that there is even 1377 a larger number of engineers working out at any particular time putting up machinery in Germany, France and all over the world, so that you may knock off no less than another ten thousand or may be up to twenty thousand for them. Then another point is that very often we have to work overtime, not because we like it but because of the pressure of trade. Probably, if the right hon. Gentleman will take a bird's-eye view of the trade and industry of the country at present, he would find that owing to the pressure of the trade boom a very large number of the rank and file of trade unionists are working overtime, and therefore are not in a position to get to their branches. If the right hon. Gentleman only knew the trade union movement as we do, he would see from the facts we have given that when it comes down to actual members who have a chance of voting, you do not get a majority of voters in the average trade union. Taking the builders and engineers, who largely work out or away, and the people at sea, and take the railway men doing long journeys, some working night work one week and day work the next, taking all the unions together, probably he would find that not a majority has a chance of voting, let alone getting a majority in favour of any particular object. I think that I have answered the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not need to say anything more than this, that if you get a majority of those voting on any particular proposition, you may fairly take that majority as representing a majority of the trade union.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSThis question was fully discussed in Committee upstairs and discussed in all its aspects. As a member of the Committee I listened very attentively to the arguments adduced by the learned Attorney-General and by many members of the Labour party. I must own that while I felt that some Amendment of this Clause was necessary I could not then and cannot now bring myself to accept the Amendment before the House to the effect that at least half of the total number of members of the union must vote in favour of any particular proposition in order that that proposition may be carried. The arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) seemed to me to be conclusive in showing that undoubtedly that is too large a proportion of the total number of members of the union to be expected to vote even on so important a matter as the extension of the 1378 powers of the union to political objects. On the other hand, I certainly would have been glad if some Amendment had been brought forward similar to the Amendments that were proposed in Committee, that a certain number of the members of the union should vote on the matter in order that the opinion of the majority should prevail. In all other matters, certainly commercial and industrial, even in this House, a quorum is required to vote in order that the opinion of the majority should prevail, and I should have been glad if an Amendment of that kind had been put down, and if the Members of the Labour party would have agreed to it. But no such Amendment is on the Paper, and I am not certain whether the Labour party would assent to any such Amendment if it were put down. I very much doubt whether they would. I should be very sorry if it should be thought that those Members of this House who are not in any way associated with trade unions, like myself, and who look at this question from a purely outside point of view, were doing anything to prevent the Members of the Labour party from enlarging their sphere of their activity by entering into political work. Therefore, I should be glad personally if the Mover and Seconder of this proposal would be willing to withdraw. Whether they will do so or not I cannot say, but if they do not, I shall not be able to vote in favour of the Amendment.
§ Mr. LYNCHAs one who is not a member of a trade union, but followed very closely the Debate, I may say a few words on this important question. These arguments were advanced at great length again and again before the Committee, and I was particularly struck by this fact, that very often when we were unable to form even the very small quorum demanded for a Committee, yet it was left to our vote to decide the question, which had its influence on the whole of the population of this country. I wondered how any hon. Gentleman who supports this Amendment could seriously propose in Committee that about nine Members should definitely pass into law something which would prevent the majority of those voting in trade unions from having their way in their own union. To-day I have listened to the various arguments, and that same impression was again and again borne in on my mind. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet (Mr. Norman Craig), who after delivering 1379 his brief left the House without waiting for an answer. He said, that the trade unions of this country had been continually enlarging their sphere of activity, that they had broken with their primary objects and become political. It is very necessary for them to become political. We have heard of those who are born to greatness, those who achieve greatness, and those who have greatness thrust upon them. Trade unions, without seeking it, have had politics absolutely thrust upon them, because we in this House undertake the management of their concerns, possibly—because there is no check whatever upon us—in dense ignorance of the administration of the law behind them, of their objects, of their mode of work, but we presume—no doubt rightly so—to interfere even in the smallest details of their organisation; yet, on the other hand, we hold up the reproach to them that they are becoming political. For my part, I hope that they will not only develop in this way, but that they will develop on the international side and develop in the sense of cohesion among trade unions.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThose observations hardly seem to be relevant to the Amendment which we are now discussing.
§ Mr. LYNCHI bow to your ruling, but I was simply following the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Thanet. The main point, however; is this: The hon. and learned Member for Hanover Square said that if one good reason was put forward he would be inclined favourably to consider the position of trade unions, and give his opinion against this Amendment. I ask him now, after having heard the hon. Member for Blackfriars, whether he is still prepared to vote for this Amendment, because Members of this House very often form an opinion, not upon the reasons for it, but because they belong to one side or the other? Personally, whether those arguments so forcibly put forward from his intimate knowledge by the hon. Member for Blackfriars held good or not, I would still be opposed to this Amendment. I quite recognise that those arguments in themselves are unanswerable, but suppose the members of a trade union have ample opportunity for voting on any matter put before them, and that, with ample time for deliberation, they still, either through carelessness or indifference, or some other 1380 cause, refrain from voting, why should their abstention of ignorance prevail against those who have taken an active part in the organisation and endeavoured, by their activity, to further its ends? I dare say the strongest reason even for their abstention, would not be indifference or ignorance, but because they had by a careful mode of election, placed in a position of power those who are best fitted to govern the trade unions and guide those who in a great majority of cases are content to leave the decision of matters in their hands. I feel that is a perfectly sound principle, and I think it is quite possible to have conciliation of democracy on a broad basis with an aristocracy. I am delighted to see before me what I may call the aristocrats of the Labour party, using the word aristocrats in the true sense of the word—I mean aristocrats not through privilege or accident, but by hard work and by approbation of their fellows in the task put before them. On all grounds I think it is simply bringing it to a reductio ad absurdum, if we in this Parliament, being only a very small proportion at the present time of Parliament itself, and Parliament being only a very small proportion of the nation, were to decide that, having the right of determining legislation by the majority of our own vote, that those votes, when we bring them to bear on the question of developing trade unions, should say that their leaders and those who have taken an active interest in their work, should be unable to carry out their own will.
§ Earl WINTERTONI wish to deal with a point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, and to which the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division replied. Before dealing with that point, I wish to say, with regard to the whole attitude of those who sit on this side of the House on this and similar Amendments, that I take it to mean that we consider the safeguards proposed by us for insertion in this Bill are necessary if the minority are to be protected. We have endeavoured to get those safeguards accepted, but they have been invariably refused. Our position is perfectly intelligible. We accept the principle of the Bill fully, but we do not accept the way in which the Bill is to be carried out, and all the responsibility for that must rest on the shoulders of the Government. So far from what the hon. Member for Glamorgan said being the fact, I would point out that during this Session trade 1381 unions have been treated as the spoiled child of the Legislature, and if that be persisted in the effect will only be to injure trade unions themselves. I know the argument will be brought against me that I have not many trade unionists in my Constituency, but I submit that in many towns of the country I see a great, danger arising from the undue power given to trade unions, just as we have seen it arise from the undue power given to corporations elsewhere.
I ask Members of the House who have not made up their minds on this Amendment to recognise that danger, and I can not think that anyone on the other side of the House will disagree with me when I say that no one can assert that the Legislature has been hard on trade unions during the last six years. I think it is not going too far to say that trade unions have been the spoiled child in regard to legislation. What we have got to recognise is that this question of Parliamentary action has not yet been settled in the trade unions themselves. If we took a canvas of every trade unionist in the country, I am not at all sure that you would not find a large majority against the proposal of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bradford, in the course of a legitimate interruption, said that trade unionists had received great benefits from political action. I differ from the hon. Gentleman, and I doubt if many trade unionists hold that point of view at all. I think a great many of them are very dissatisfied with what their Parliamentary representatives have done. The Government are asking Parliament to give the trade unionists an exceptional privilege. It was observed by an hon. Member that nothing is being done here which has not been done for commercial or political corporations, but you are really asking Parliament to do much more than that. What is the position of trade unionists upon this matter? If there were a unanimous vote, if there were any means open to us of ascertaining what the real view of individual members of trade unions is on this matter, and if trade unionists, by an overwhelming majority, sought to be allowed to take political action, then the safeguards which Parliament imposed would naturally be much less than are necessary in the case of the present Bill.
But that fight has not yet been fought out, and the Government in refusing this Amendment are, I submit, weighting one 1382 of the clubs in the fight. As regards the point that if the Amendment were accepted it would make it impossible for any trade union to carry on political action, owing to the difficulty, for example, of getting hold of the individual members, I would submit that there is a greatly exaggerated fear in regard to that difficulty on the part of Labour Members opposite. On another stage of the Bill the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) said it was impossible to get hold of individual members in order to obtain a ballot with regard to any proposed legislation of the Government. I hope the House will allow me to read an extract from a letter on the very point relating to the taking of the ballot. The letter is from a member of a trade union. [The Noble Lord read an extract to the effect that secretaries of a trade union in the Lancashire cotton trade had distributed the papers to the individual members of the unions in the mills where they worked.]
§ Mr. GILLWhat the Noble Lord has read is exactly what I stated. We have a different system from other trade unions, and we got at the individual members through the secretaries.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe point here is that you have an instance in which you have got hold of the names and addresses of the individual members, and why could not that be done in every trade union?
§ Mr. GILLI absolutely deny that the general secretary has the power to get the names of the whole of the members in the mills. The only addresses we ask for are those of the secretaries in each mill, who get at the men in the mills.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Gentleman himself shows that the union officials were able to obtain the names, and my correspondent in his last sentence said those secretaries are paid officers of the union and are in the respective mills where they distribute to every member the ballot paper or card as the case may be. The point I wish to make is that forty or fifty paid officers of the union have obtained the names of members of the union, and I assert with confidence that it is possible for a trade union through its paid officers to get hold of the name and address of every member of the union. That has been denied again and again by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I submit that if it has been possible to get hold of these 1383 names in one instance, it should be possible in others, and, that being so, the objection to the Amendment falls to the ground. If there be machinery through paid officers to reach the individual members, then I say there is not the slightest reason why this Amendment should not be passed. If you inform every member as to the ballot which is to be taken, and if you cannot get 51 per cent, of the members to vote, then it may be fairly assumed that the desire of that union for political action cannot be very strong. I do not know whether the House is aware that the figures in an ordinary General Election show that something like 84 per cent, of the people on the average vote in a Parliamentary Election. If that be so, surely it should be possible to get 51 per cent, to vote in an election of this kind. My own impression is, and it has certainly been strengthened by what I have observed, that hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that, there is no wide desire among trade union members for political action, and, therefore, they desire that the Bill should stand in such a way as to make it possible for the minority to undertake political action. Otherwise, I cannot see, for the life of me, after listening to the Debate, what can be the objection to this Amendment. There is one other point, which is a matter showing how little interest is taken at the present time by many trade unions as to the question of political action, and the reason why the Labour party are opposing this Amendment. I have here the report of the Labour party, as well as the report of the Trade Union Congress for last year. Looking through them, I observe extraordinary discrepancies in the contributions of the different unions to that party. Some unions, with memberships totalling as many as 30,000, sent small contributions of £30 to the Labour party, while unions with a membership of perhaps seven or eight thousand sent contributions of £100. Two most important unions, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the Iron and Brass Founders' Union, sent no contribution at all, although they have a total membership of 100,000.
§ Mr. JOWETTThey were "injuncted."
§ Earl WINTERTONThere may have been an injunction against one of them.
§ Mr. JOWETTAgainst both of them.
§ Earl WINTERTONThat does not affect the matter of my argument. [Laughter.] 1384 Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but it does not affect the value of my argument. The real point is as to the discrepancies. It is not suggested that some of those societies, which, with a membership of 10,000, made a contribution of £2, or one which made a contribution of 10s., had been injuncted, although they are so keen about political action.
§ Mr. BARNESCan you give us the name of that society?
§ Earl WINTERTONI am not sure that I have the name now, but it is in this book. There may be a reason for it, and I have no doubt there is a reason; but I call the attention of my hon. Friends to this, that no argument has been brought forward to show that there is this widespread desire on the part of the members of trade unions for political action, and because there is not that desire, and because hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite know that their position is insecure, and that their party is insecure, they are demanding this provision in order to make it possible for a minority of the members of trade unions to force the unions into political action. The House may refuse this Amendment and other Amendments of the kind, and I have no doubt they will do so, but all I can say is that I think the day will come when the House will very much regret that it came to that decision. I believe the only result of giving this absolutely unguarded privilege to trade unions, which I do not believe the members of those unions desire, and which I do not believe they would express themselves in favour of on a ballot, will be to do harm to the trade unions themselves and gross injustice to the community.
§ Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONThe Noble Lord has taken on himself the rôle of a strong advocate of the interests of the members of trade unions. He has put forward as one of his very strong pleas that in the attitude which he and his Friends have taken up on this particular question they are particularly interested in the welfare of the members of the trade unions of this country. I am sure that the Noble Lord will not be surprised if we on these benches and those we represent in this House refuse to accept with enthusiasm or sincerity the professed friendship of the Noble Lord and his immediate Friends for the trade unions of this country. He has endeavoured to make Certain references to the financial state- 1385 ment, which I imagine he has quoted from the report of the Labour party. I want to submit to the House that the Noble Lord has demonstrated his incapacity and inability and therefore has forfeited any right to take the floor of this House and speak in the interests of the trade unions of this country. If he was informed as to the elementary facts appertaining to the constitution of the Labour party, I am certain he would not have made the mistakes he made during the course of the speech he has just delivered. During the course of that speech he ventured to say to the House that Parliament was treating the trade unionists of this country very much as a spoiled child, having before his mind the very point at issue in this Debate, which is the right of the trade unions of this country, if a majority of their members by ballot-vote decide in favour of political action, that they should be allowed to take that course. May I remind the Noble Lord that on a previous occasion when a similar discussion took place in this House the Member for Oldham (Mr. Denniss), I think in a maiden speech, made a very interesting statement which we have repeated on Labour platforms hundreds of times? The statement was to the effect that he admitted that the right of trade unionists to take part in political action had never been questioned for at least forty years, and that it was only questioned the moment the trade unionists of the country decided on independent labour lines to fight their own political battles. We had a more recent contribution when we entered on this stage of the Bill from the hon. Member who moved the first Amendment (Mr. Leslie Scott), and who said:—
I do not in any way wish to raise any controversy relating to that question—that is, the question of political action—I accept the historical facts that trade unions did, to a great extent, carry on political activities in a growing degree down to the time of the Osborne Judgment, particularly during the year that preceded the Osborne Judgment.When the Noble Lord suggested to the House that because of our demands in the name of the industrial toilers of this country to be allowed to exercise and to enjoy the rights that for forty years we enjoyed without molestation trade unions are being treated by Parliament as a spoiled child, then I submit he is adding insult to the intelligence of this House. The hon. and learned Member who moved this Amendment emphasised 1386 as one of his main points that political action was a subsidiary purpose of the trade union movement. Let me give another quotation from the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) in his speech on the first Amendment, and I think it will be proof positive that that suggestion of the hon. and learned Member is hardly in harmony with the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who said:—There is one reason which seems to me to be paramount on that question, namely, that the solution of industrial difficulties, the solution of the great question of industrial unrest which has been so much before us recently, must lie more and more as years go on in the action of Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1913, col. 1093.]I think that we who sit on these benches are entitled to claim that we are able to speak, not only with larger authority, but certainly with more well-informed minds as to the opinions and aspirations and desires of the industrial toilers of this country than are hon. Gentlemen opposite. I desire to repudiate, and I think the whole of my colleagues will associate themselves with me in that repudiation, the suggestion that we are asking for favours from Parliament. We are demanding as an act of elementary justice in view of the elementary fact that industrial and economic fights of the future, even on the authority of some Members opposite, are to be fought on the floor of this House, that the industrial toilers shall be allowed to enter the arena of practical politics, and in the name of the workers of this country continue to occupy their rightful place in the council of the nation.
§ Viscount WOLMERI am very much disposed to agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that this Amendment does not propose to take away any special privilege that is claimed by the leaders of the trade unions, and, furthermore, I would be prepared to concede to the hon. Member for South Glamorgan and to several other hon. Members who have spoken that if the great majority of trade unionists do not vote, and are too slack to vote on these ballots, then they have nobody to thank but themselves for any ill consequences that may arise. I am perfectly prepared to concede that to hon. Members opposite. I am also prepared to admit the strength of the consideration that was adduced by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), who made by far the most powerful speech against this Amendment that we have heard on the subject. I am perfectly prepared to admit that in the case 1387 of men who are at sea or out of the country, or who are engaged in certain occupations, that it is impossible for them to record their votes in the ballot. Those difficulties could perfectly well be overcome by arrangements. They are not insuperable difficulties, and if the principle for which we are contending was agreeable to hon. Members opposite, the difficulties of men who are not able to vote by reason of living far away from their lodges would be very easily surmounted. The question I want to ask hon. Members of the Labour party is, why should it be assumed because members of trade unions do not vote at the ballots that therefore they approve of the policy which has been adopted by the leaders of the union.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Viscount WOLMERWhy should it be assumed that silence gives consent? The hon. Member for Bolton asked me why should the opposite be assumed. I put it to him in this way, that this Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage lays it down that once this ballot has been taken, and a resolution has been carried in favour of taking political action, that every member of the union shall be obliged to contribute to the political fund unless he makes personal application for exemption. That is to say, this Bill places the onus of application on those who dissent from political contribution. Therefore, I argue that it is unreasonable that the onus of making application should be placed upon the great bulk of trade unionists by a small vote which only represents 4 or 5 per cent, of the members of the union. If the Bill was drafted differently, and the onus of application was put upon those members of the union who wanted to contribute towards the political fund, there would be a great deal in the contention of the hon. Member for Bolton that those members who did not care to vote should be assumed as endorsing the policy of the leaders of the union. But if we are to take it that all those who do not make application are in favour of the political levy, I think it is unreasonable to assume, if the vast majority of members do not vote at all, that therefore they are in favour of that course. If hon. Members opposite were willing to agree to its being necessary to secure a majority of the members of the union before political 1388 action could be taken, they would be on far stronger grounds in demanding that the onus of application for exemption should be upon those who do not wish to contribute to the political funds.
We have been told by the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), that we, in this House, have no right to interfere with the internal management of trade unions. That is a very important consideration. Neither this House nor any other has a right to prevent people from spending their own money in the way they want to, provided it is their own money. Therefore, if the hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham can prove to me that this is an unwarrantable interference with the internal management of trade unions, he will have gone a long way to prove his case. But I do not think he is able to do that in the slightest degree. In the first place, the whole of this Bill can be said to be to a certain extent an interference with the internal management of trade unions. You cannot get away from that. Therefore, the principle of State supervision, if I may put it in those terms, has been accepted by hon. Members opposite in voting for this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One of the fundamental principles on which the Bill is based is that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should have certain effective powers of investigation and control in regard to the internal working of the unions. How-do we justify that? Nobody has shown the justification more clearly than the hon. Member for Glamorgan who made a lucid and frank speech, as he always does, when speaking on this or any other question. He put forward the claim, which he has put forward on other occasions, that every working man shall, if possible, be forced to join a trade union, whether he wishes to or not, and he said that he himself will adopt every honourable means in his power to bring about that result.
As long as it is the claim of trade union leaders—and I can quite appreciate that for the purposes of collective bargaining it is very advantageous to them to have as many men in the unions as possible— that they shall be able to coerce men into trade unions against their will, either by strikes, or by inducing employers like the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) to dismiss every non-unionist, this House must exercise some sort of supervision over the internal management of the unions. If the 1389 minority are to be forced into joining trade unions against their will, this House has a responsibility to see that their interests are not prejudiced thereby. It is for these reasons that I justify the insertion in this Bill of such a provision as we are attempting in this Amendment and the other regulations that have been imposed upon the unions by different Clauses of the Bill. The whole necessity for any interference with the internal management of trade unions arises from the fact that they claim and exercise the right of forcing men against their wishes to enter into membership with them. I wish to ask hon. Members opposite one final question. I am quite prepared to admit that there may be practical difficulties in the matter of getting members to vote at the ballot; but surely those technical difficulties do not account for the extraordinary results which have been often quoted in these Debates, such, for instance, as that of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Engineers, when, on a ballot being taken as to whether or not there should be a political levy, out of 107,000 members only 5,000 voted in favour and 2,000 against. There are other figures equally strong. No adequate explanation has been given of the disparity between the establishment of trade unions and their voting strength. Surely the fundamental reason why hon. Members opposite cannot get more men to vote in favour of a political levy is that they really have not got the support of the vast majority of trade unionists in the political policy which they advocate. If the vast bulk of trade unionists really believed in the political principles advocated by hon. Members opposite, there would not be the slightest difficulty in getting those men to vote at the ballot in favour of a political levy. After all, these men vote at Parliamentary elections. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do they?"] The hon. Member who interrupts knows perfectly well that in an industrial district at a Parliamentary election generally about 90 per cent, of the electorate poll. It is therefore obvious that the trade unionists who vote must vote to the number, roughly speaking, of about 90 per cent. How comes it, then, that in the ballots connected with the internal management of their own unions only 5 or 6 per cent, vote? Surely it is that whereas the leaders of the trade unions have the support of the vast majority of trade unionists on industrial matters—they would not be in their present positions if they had not—they have not that support on political matters.
1390 That, to my mind, is the reason why they have failed to get a majority of the members of the unions to vote in favour of a political levy. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that if they once conceded the principle that a majority of the members should be required to vote before political action could be taken, they would in fact be prevented from taking such action. I do not wish to press the matter so far that the effect would be to prevent trade unions and Socialism from being adequately represented in this House; but I say that before this Bill lays it down that every trade unionist shall be considered as willing to pay a political levy, unless he has the courage and enterprise to apply for special exemption, you ought, at any rate, to insist on some form of quorum at the ballot by which it is decided to have a political levy. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Durham said that we in this House decide questions by a simple majority. That is true. So does every other assembly. But every assembly recognises the necessity of having a quorum. What we ask for is that if trade unions are to take part in politics there should be some quorum of the electorate required to vote at the ballot. We think that that demand is a reasonable one. Not only does it not cut against the interests of the political action of trade unions, but it really places their leaders in this House on a firmer foundation and in a more authoritative position than they could possibly hope to have when they are here only by virtue of something in the nature of a snap Division.
§ Mr. NEWTONI was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes). I am sorry he is not in the House now, because I should have liked to ask him a question, his answer to which, no doubt, would have still further strengthened me in the view I take. I understood him to say that at a moment of great crisis in the union with which he is particularly concerned they were able to secure the attendance of only some 39 per cent, of the enrolled members of the union. We are here dealing with a practical question, and that statement of the hon. Member seems to me to have been a most practical contribution to the Debate. I do not propose to go into the merits of the general question. With much that was said by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) I agree, but it does not seem to me to be entirely relevant to the question under discussion. 1391 In my view, the majority of trade unionists do not approve of the political policy of the trade unionist party. I am confident that that is so in my own Division. None the less, seeing that according to the information given to us by hon. Members opposite, who on this point should be in the best position to describe the realities of trade union life, it is impossible to secure the attendance of 51 per cent, of the enrolled members of the unions, I think we should be doing wrong if we insisted upon the Amendment now before the House. Therefore, with very little hesitation indeed, I, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, will have no difficulty in withholding my vote from this Amendment if it goes to a Division.
§ Sir W. BYLESThe last two speakers, it seems to me, have both maintained a most extraordinary position: that the majority of trade unionists do not agree with the political policy of the men whom they send here to represent them. To me that is quite incredible. I do not believe it for one moment. I do not in the least think that any considerable number of persons, or an appreciable number of trade unionists, are being coerced as suggested by the speakers who have just addressed us. If it be that there is really a majority of trade unionists who disagree with the political action of their union, all I can say is that they are not entitled to much respect either from us or from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Surely they can get their way. They have perfect freedom to make such rules as would embody the policy they do believe in. The Noble Lord the Member for Newton is obsessed by the idea that men are being forced into trade unions. I have had some considerable experience of trade unions and I do not believe such a thing. There is no such forcing. There are a large number of workmen who are not in trade unions. They are free labourers, and they are perfectly at liberty to form themselves into whatever body they like. There is no compulsion upon them at all. There may be individual places—Newton may be one— where almost the entire population of working men are in the unions, and where the few exceptions may feel a little uncomfortable. It was so I remember in the days of the Land League in Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—where the whole of the tenants—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is wandering rather far from the Amendment, which has now been narrowed down to a very small question.
§ Mr. C. EDWARDS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That the word 'voting' stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (a) to add the words
"where such a resolution is in force, unless rules to be approved, whether the union is registered or not, by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, are in force providing"—
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Attorney-General's proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "whether the union is registered or not."
§ Mr. SANDYSI beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTThis Amendment I think will probably command the assent of the House. I think it is in accordance with the spirit and the intention of the Bill as drawn. The point is this: by Clause 1 of the Bill the unions are entitled to carry on any lawful object. Under Clause 2 trade unions are defined as unions which have for their principal objects statutory objects under their constitution, within the meaning of Clause 1, Sub-section (2). The latter part of Clause 2, Sub-sections (2), (3). (4), and (5) deals with the registration of unions, or as an alternative to registration the granting to a trade union which is not registered and which docs not wish to be registered, a certificate that it is a trade union under this Act. I apprehend that in the Act which confers upon trade union the new right—I mean new from the point of view of the law—of carrying on political business, that the provisions in Clause 2 as to registration or certificates are two alternative modes of giving effective publicity to a trade union which the Bill intends shall be the conditions, principally, of the Bill to carry on political business. I apprehend that at the present day for all practical purposes there is no trade union which is not registered or which would not 1393 have a certificate under this Act if not registered, which at the same time is not going to carry on political business. All great unions will be registered, or at any rate they will have a certificate under this Act. It is simply in order to have it clear in the Act that this is the intention of the Act that I move the omission of these words. They will be followed as a matter of necessary consequence by adding at the end of Clause 3, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), a further "unless" Clause—that is, that the trade union funds shall not be applied to political objects "unless" there has been a resolution, "unless" there are rules, and then the further words, "unless the union is registered or has a certificate in accordance with the provisions of this Act." I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if this view of the Bill is consonant with the intention of the Government. Secondly, I ask whether he agrees with me as a mere matter of law—I think it is obviously a matter of law—that without this alternative I am proposing the Bill would not carry out the intention which I apprehend is the intention of the Government, and at any rate which I suggest is the right course to take. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer me before I say anything on the merits of the question. If he agrees with my view, then it will be unnecessary to say anything on the merits. My question is whether it is the intention of the framers of the Bill that the right to carry on political business should attach to unions only if they are either registered or in possession of a certificate?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSindicated dissent.
§ Mr. LESLIE SCOTTIt is not the intention, then? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not the intention of the Government to attach these conditions to the right to carry on political business. I am rather surprised at the answer, because I should have thought it manifestly right that where political powers of this kind are being conferred, which are a very great practical power, that there some degree of publicity should be required of the bodies to which the powers are to be entrusted. It is not much publicity. It is simply merely for the registration or the granting of a certificate by the Registrar that the body is a trade union. That is all the publicity necessary. The public may then know what the public body is that has these political powers. I submit that the proposal is one which is self-evident, that 1394 the course I propose should be adopted by the House, and that we should ask that the unions which are to receive these powers should be known to the public by registration or by a certificate.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWith regard to the provisions in the Bill as to the registration of unions, of course, as a matter of fact, it is optional upon trade unions under present circumstances. If a trade union does register, it is under the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. In order that the Registrar should have further powers in regard to it we have made a certain provision in Clause 2. Another object in view is to prevent litigation as to whether or not the combination is a trade union within the meaning of the Bill. In order that there should be no doubt about that, and to prevent expensive and very often protracted litigation, we say that an application may be made for a certificate. That application may be made by either a registered society or an unregistered society. It is not necessary to register under the Act in order to get a certificate. Once the certificate has been granted, it is conclusive for all purposes. Any trade union that has got this certificate, so long as it holds it, can never have the question raised against it that it is not a trade union within the meaning of this Act. That is the whole point.
At the same time, we have no intention of saying that no combination which otherwise conforms to the definition of a trade union in this Bill shall be entitled to carry on unless it either registers or gets a certificate. If it does not choose to register and remains an unregistered society no objection would be taken to that—my hon. Friend does not take objection. What he says is, then it must apply for a certificate. I think what he omits to notice is that the object in granting a certificate is to avoid litigation. It is not meant to do any more. All that it means is that that combination would not have to prove, if it goes into Court, that it is a trade union within the meaning of the Act. There is a definition of a trade union which begins at the first part of Clause 2. It is quite clear, and really incorporates the definitions which are already in existence under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1906. It means "any combination whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects." That is the definition of a trade union. Any combination which conforms to these conditions is a trade union, whether it 1395 chooses to register or whether it chooses to remain unregistered, or apply for a certificate or not. It is entirely a matter which is optional upon the trade union. We do not intend—I do not think it would be right—to insist either upon a trade union registering or obtaining a certificate. Though I quite appreciate the reason of my hon. Friend opposite in calling attention to the matter, I cannot accept the Amendment, because I think it would be going a great deal further than any intention in the Bill, and would necessitate further alterations.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ Viscount WOLMERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words, "from any obligation to," and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
My Amendment does not entirely show its importance upon the face of it, but the the effect of it is to put the onus and obligation to the lodge secretary of the union on those members of the union who desire to contribute to the political funds instead of putting it, as the Bill does, on those members of the union who do not desire to contribute to the political fund. I should have thought after the arguments we heard in Committee upstairs, that it would be quite evident to the House that the course I am now recommending is a reasonable and proper one. It seems to me absurd to say that because a man makes no application to his union officials that therefore he is to be assumed to be in favour of contributing his money towards the support of the Labour party in the House of Commons. This Amendment is indeed a very important one, and is thoroughly consistent with the whole principle upon which the Bill is founded. That principle is, that whereas the unions should be allowed to take part in politics, there shall be no sort of pressure put upon any member of the union who disagrees with the policy of the Labour party to contribute his money towards the funds of that party, and with that object the Bill has made careful provision for the secrecy of the ballot, and for safeguarding, as the Government are always pointing out, of the rights of the minority. But if the ballot is to be secret it must be so in fact as well as in name, and what the Govern- 1396 ment are asking us to do in leaving the Bill as it is drafted at the present moment, is this: They say that if a ballot is taken it ought to be secret, so that it shall not be known how any of the men vote, so that any man may vote against a political levy without its being known; and in the next paragraph they say that if a man disapproves of a political levy and wishes to avail himself of the provisions of the Bill, he has to send up his name to the lodge secretary or the officials of the union for exemption. That is forcing him at once to show which way he voted in the ballot which is supposed to be secret, therefore this provision entirely invalidates the safeguard and the guarantee of secrecy which the Government have set out in the fourth Clause.
My first reason for moving this Amendment is, that the guarantees of secrecy are not really operative if a man who did not wish to contribute to the funds of the Labour party has got to make application for exemption; and in support of that I would like to remind the House of what happened to Mr. Osborne and those men who have objected to pay the Parliamentary levy in their trade unions, and I must also remind the House of the claims put forward from the benches opposite this afternoon, in order that the House may see exactly the importance of the Amendment I am now proposing. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that Mr. Osborne, who objected to pay the levy of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, was a lifelong member of his union; he was secretary to his lodge, and was a typical representative of trade unionism. Mr. Osborne objected to pay this levy; he did exactly what the Attorney-General is now inviting those who think like him in trade unions to do when the Bill becomes law; he objected to pay the levy, and of course the officials of his union resisted, and he took the case into the Law Courts, and the Law Courts decided he was right. The hon. Member for Stockport disputes the accuracy of my statement apparently.
§ Mr. WARDLEI do indeed.
§ Viscount WOLMERIf the hon. Gentleman thinks that anything I said was inaccurate, let him afterwards give the House his view of what he conceives to be the true account of what actually happened.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSOn a point of Order. The Noble Lord is 1397 moving to substitute in paragraph (b) the word "willing" for "unwilling."
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo; that is not the Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERIf the hon. Member would pay some slight attention to the proceedings of this House, he would then raise proper points of Order. What I was pointing out was that Mr. Osborne, in taking the action he did in the famous Osborne case, was simply doing what the Government are now requesting the minority of trade union bodies to avail themselves of under this Bill. I would like the House to remember how Mr. Osborne was treated. He was expelled from his union although he contributed to that union for nineteen years. He was turned out of the union although he had every right to be regarded as as good a trade unionist as hon. Members opposite. I believe it is true Mr. Osborne received £12 10s. compensation for the contributions he made. That is true, and I think it should be stated, but we know that other men expelled from trade unions for the same reason as Mr. Osborne was expelled did not receive a penny piece of compensation.
§ Mr. WARDLEWho are they?
§ Viscount WOLMERI give the case of Mr. Joseph Park, who refused to pay the political levy of the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation. He was expelled from the union and has been subjected to every sort of persecution and indignity, and has not received a single penny in compensation for the contributions he paid last year. I bring forward these cases to show the necessity for my Amendment. I venture to assert that if a member of a trade union is asked to go to the officials of his union and say, "I object to pay for political purposes with which I do not agree," that man will be immediately regarded as a blackleg and an enemy of the trade union, and will receive the same sort of treatment that was meted out to Mr. Osborne and Mr. Park and many others, although, of course, it would not be possible to do it so openly after this Bill as heretofore.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe hon. Member for Bolton says "Not at all," but I will tell him why I think so. This is what was said upstairs and in this House this afternoon by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan and others. The hon. Member 1398 for South Glamorgan laid down the principle very frankly that members of trade unions ought to have no possible objection towards contributing to the political funds of the Labour party, and his reason was this: He said the trade unionist who accepts the benefits which have been secured for trade unions by the Labour party in the House of Commons, with their Eight Hours Act and the Minimum Wage Act, and yet refuse to pay towards the election expenses of those Members, is getting something which he has never paid for, and has no right to, and is really sponging on his colleagues. That is the attitude of the Labour party; that is what they conscientiously believe to be right, and I think it represents the general view of trade unionists. That being so, how-can they possibly regard the privileges of this Bill as sincere and honourable towards trade unionists? The hon. Member for South Glamorgan has again and again said he has the utmost possible contempt for any trade unionist who is willing to take the benefits conferred by the Labour party, but who is unwilling to pay for their presence in the House of Commons. That to my mind accounts for the way Mr. Osborne and others have been treated by the executive of the trade unions.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese arguments are really all arguments upon Second Reading. Will the Noble Lord address himself to the particular Amendment?
§ Viscount WOLMERI apologise if I have travelled wide.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have been nearly twenty minutes listening to the Noble Lord's preliminary arguments.
§ Viscount WOLMERI would point out, if I may, why I thought what I said was perfectly relevant to the Amendment, and it is because the effect of my Amendment would be that those members who do not desire to contribute to the political funds of the union should not be obliged to make formal application, and thereby expose their identity to the trade union executive. The whole point is that the men who have dared to make formal application for exemption from paying to the political funds of their unions have been victimised in the past, and we have heard from the Labour Benches this afternoon that that victimisation is approved and would, presumably, be continued in the future. That is the sole reason why I am 1399 proposing this Amendment; otherwise it might seem to people a very small matter, whether the onus of application should be on the one side or the other. To my mind it is a very important question. If a man—let us say he is a Conservative trade unionist, and there are many such —is obliged to go to the leaders of his union, who are his political opponents, and say, "I object to paying the Parliamentary levy in support of the Labour party in the House of Commons," that man would be exposing himself to the treatment which I have described to the House.
§ Sir W. BYLESThe vast majority of them.
§ Viscount WOLMERThe hon. Member for Salford is mistaken. I said the vast majority of the trade unionists did not approve of the policy of the Labour party, but I never said the vast majority of the trade unionists were political antagonists of the Labour party. A vast majority of them are neutral, or they are not enthusiastic supporters of the Labour party or of any other political party. If a man is forced to declare which way he has voted in a ballot by making personal application for exemption under this Section, then he will be exposing himself to all the dangers which I have dwelt upon. Supposing this Amendment is carried, we shall be told that if a man refuses to make an application to be allowed to contribute to the funds of the Labour party, it will be said he is showing which way he voted in the ballot. We shall be told that the mere fact of allowing a man to withhold his application will not enable him to preserve secret the manner in which he voted at the ballot. That is what was said on the Standing Committee. I submit that that would not be so. A man might desire to refuse to contribute to the Labour party for a variety of reasons. He might wish to refuse because he was too poor, or because he had some personal reasons against a particular representative, or because he disapproved of the general policy of the Labour party. Therefore, by simply remaining silent, he would not be exposing himself to the same obloquy as he would if he had to go forward and take the same steps which Mr. Osborne had to take. I contend that this Amendment is consistent with the principle of the Bill. If the Labour party think they represent the opinion of the great majority of trade unionists, then they have nothing to fear 1400 from this Amendment Finally, if this Amendment is rejected, it will make it very difficult for any trade unionist to withhold his financial support from the Labour party without being considered what is known as a blackleg and an opponent of trade unionism.
§ Sir PHILIP MAGNUSI beg leave to second this Amendment. My Noble Friend has adduced every possible argument that can be urged in favour of it. The Amendment is one of very great importance, and I think the Attorney-General will be ready to admit that that is the case. It was discussed in Committee, but it was not accepted. I think it is a proposal well worthy of reconsideration, and having regard to the fact that very few, if any, of the substantial Amendments brought forward in Grand Committee have been accepted by the Government, and that this Bill will go through the House practically in the form in which it was originally introduced, but somewhat strengthened from the labour point of view, I appeal to the Government to accept this particular Amendment which does not in any way alter the principle of the Bill. It is merely a question of procedure. The principle has been accepted that anyone who objects to contribute towards the Parliamentary fund shall have an opportunity of being exempted from such contribution. Therefore the only difference between us and hon. Members opposite is the simple question whether a member shall announce his intention and his desire to be exempted from the contribution, or whether failing to announce that intention he may be required to contribute. May I read the Clause as it will read after the Amendment is inserted?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am afraid it will not read.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSIt will read as follows:
"That any payments in furtherance of these objects are to be made out of a separate fund, in this Act referred to as the political fund of the union, and that any member of the union may contribute to such a fund if he gives notice in accordance with this Act that he is willing to contribute."
The Amendment simply suggests that any one who is willing to contribute to this fund shall give notice to that effect, and I do think, after the previous Clause has been adopted by the House, that this Amendment might be accepted by the 1401 Labour party. Nearly every argument used in favour of not requiring a majority of the members of a trade union to signify their desire to contribute to the fund for political purposes applies to this case. The argument has been used that members of a trade union are often very unwilling to express their opinion, and it is difficult to get at the members who do not desire to express their views in writing. Ought it to be assumed for one moment that because the members of a union fail to indicate in writing or in any other way that they are unwilling to contribute towards the political fund, that therefore they are willing to contribute. That is a contention which cannot for one moment be maintained. Take any other case. Suppose one is a member, as I am, of the Unionist party, and they desire a contribution towards Tariff Reform or anything else, and they write asking me for such a contribution, and I do not reply. Ought it to be assumed that I am willing to contribute. It is assumed as the Bill stands that anyone who does not ask for exemption from this particular Clause shall be obliged to contribute, and it is only with a view to altering that procedure that this Amendment has been moved. This really is an Amendment which is absolutely necessary to protect the minority of members of a trade union, and I trust the Members of the Labour party themselves will see the necessity of accepting it. The Amendment will also considerably simplify this Bill. It will be seen that one or two Clauses can be left out if we do not adopt the artificial procedure of this measure, which requires everyone who does not desire to contribute to this political fund to express in some way his wish to be exempted.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe Noble Lord who moved this Amendment said it was an important matter. That is quite true; in fact, it is so important that we could not accept it because it would change the Bill completely. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is what they want."] It follows from what the hon. Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus) has said, that once you adopt this Amendment you will have to leave out one or two Clauses, and that is quite true. It would necessarily follow, if we accepted this proposal, that we should have to change our Bill completely. The principle which was affirmed on the Second Reading was that you should give the right to trade unions of engaging in political operations provided you made certain 1402 conditions, one of them being that you should provide for the exemption of any person who claimed to be exempt. What the Noble Lord wishes to do by his Amendment is to say, "Oh, no, if a man wishes to contribute he may declare his willingness and then he may contribute and the union may receive his money." You do not want a Bill for that. You do not want a Bill to give a man the right to contribute, but you do want a Bill for the purpose of enabling a trade union to engage in political activities, and in order to do that we say you shall have this opportunity, but you must have the secret ballot; and further, you must give a written exemption in regard to it, and we make provision that these rights shall be easily exercised.
7.0 P.M.
What do you do if you adopt this Amendment? The hon. Member opposite was careful not to use the same arguments as those which were put forward by the Noble Lord. I am not sorry that the Noble Lord has repeated the same arguments which he used in Committee upstairs. He has taken a very strong line of opposition to certain provisions of this Bill, and he has conducted his opposition with marked ability. He has made speeches which show that he has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and that he has mastered it, but the one striking feature which always emerges from his argument is that the trade unionist who does not choose to pay and claims exemption will be a marked man, that he will be coerced, intimidated, and in many other ways made to suffer. That really is reverting to the kind of argument which was used upstairs, but from which so far during the course of this Debate we have been singularly free. I do not complain of any Member who chooses to say it would be better to do it in another way, but I do not think it is right to say, "We desire in every way to assist the unions, and we make no suggestion against them or against the way in which they carry on their work," and then to justify this Amendment upon the ground that if a member takes advantage of the Exemption Clause in the Bill he is going to be a marked man, and will be made to suffer all kinds of consequences. I think it is regrettable that argument should have been used. I am sure the Noble Lord will readily admit that in Committee we did, so far as we could, meet objections. I understand the view is that a man should have some opportunity of 1403 claiming some exemption in some particular form. We have given him an opportunity. It has been done. The main reason the Noble Lord moves this Amendment is because at bottom he is absolutely distrustful of the unions.
§ Viscount WOLMERBecause I believe the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (Mr. Brace) believes what he says.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat, no doubt, is very clever, but it is not quite so candid as the Noble Lord is usually. The Noble Lord, before he had ever heard the statement of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, had made up his mind.
§ Viscount WOLMERI have heard others like it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt was said in Committee, and the Noble Lord welcomes it because it confirms him, but he had formed his opinion before he ever heard the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. I am not going to say there have not been cases in which members of trade unions have had cause to complain. I do not know any particular society or combination of men in which those things do not happen. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus) said, "Why should you compel a man to contribute if he does not want? Why not let him simply declare whether he is willing to contribute? How can you justify compelling him?" Supposing he and I were members of the same club, and there was a vote taken upon a particular point of principle, it might be that neither of us voted upon it, but, nevertheless, we should be bound by the majority, and have to do what the majority wished. We should not even have the right to claim exemption.
§ Sir P. MAGNUSHere you are bound to do what the majority wish, and you can claim exemption.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is what I am pointing out. We should be bound, although not voting, by the majority, but in the trade union we give the right of claiming exemption in case a member does not wish to contribute. It is really difficult to see, except as a ground of objection to the Bill on Second Reading, how this Amendment could be put forward. I could understand it as a ground of objection to the Bill, but, if you are to take the Bill as it stands, you cannot accept the 1404 Amendment without fundamentally altering the whole principles on which it is founded.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLThis Amendment is really necessary if the House is going to give effect to the assurances made over and over again in this House and in Committee that a man shall, after the passing of the Bill, be absolutely free to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund of a union, and that if he chooses not to contribute he shall not be damnified in any way. The right hon. Gentleman likened the case to a club. There is really no analogy whatever. The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to join any club in order to earn his living, but a man is bound to join a trade union in order to do his work. If the right hon. Gentleman were bound to belong to a club in order that he might earn his living, then the analogy might apply.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI likened the method of voting in a club in answer to the argument used by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir P. Magnus).
§ Mr. H. TERRELLThe Attorney-General must see there is no analogy whatever. He is trying to draw an analogy between institutions which are totally and radically different. It is essential a man should under no circumstances be damnified if he chooses to exercise the right which the Bill is supposed to give him of claiming exemption. The provisions of the Bill are carefully drafted to provide for a secret ballot on the question whether the union should engage in political activities, and at the same time it is provided that the men who in the ballot oppose entering upon political activities should immediately afterwards be bound to declare in substance the way in which they voted. A man votes secretly against engaging in political activities. His secrecy is supposed to be safeguarded. That is an essential principle of the Bill according to the Attorney-General. Those men who oppose the union entering upon political activities will be those who will claim exemption, but the moment the resolution has been passed, if they want to claim the benefit of the exemption, they have got to declare themselves, and by that means declare which way they voted on the resolution. What is the use of the ballot? Is it not an illusion and a sham if you tell a man the moment there has been a ballot and it is against him "you have to declare you are in the minority;
1405 otherwise you get no benefit whatever"? It may do very well for the purposes of the platform, but, if it is examined, it will not bear criticism for a moment. A man is not to be damnified by claiming exemption, but, before he can claim exemption, he has to declare himself. He is in a minority; he may be in a small minority. The principle upon which trade unions have been supported has been that the majority should govern the minority. A man who is in the minority says, in the first place, "I do not want to belong to the union." You compel him. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We know the methods that are used. It is no use denying it. It was admitted in this House not long ago, and it has been admitted to-day. Take a miner in the Rhondda Valley. He cannot help himself. Such pressure is brought to bear upon him that he has to belong to the union.
§ Mr. SNOWDENHow about the lawyer? Can a lawyer practise in a Court of Law without being a member of a trade union?
§ Mr. TERRELLCertainly he can. There are certain qualifications which a man has to possess before he is allowed to appear in one of His Majesty's Courts. But let me accept the analogy for the moment. Would the Attorney-General like the majority of the Bar, for instance, to say what politics the Bar should adopt, and would he like to be compelled to subscribe to those politics whether he agreed with them or not? That is the position in which you are going to put the members of the trade unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No," but I most emphatically say "Yes." The unfortunate man has in the first place to declare he is opposed to the majority. What will be his position? He may be a man who has contributed for twenty or thirty years to the funds of the trade union and who is entitled under the rules of the union to receive benefits. If he lays himself out to oppose the majority of the union, they may deny him any benefit whatever, and he has no remedy. An hon. Member says I was one of the majority of four. I was, and if that majority had been a trade union, we should have been able to tyrannise over the minority according to the principles of this Bill. It is a very good example. A very small majority under this Bill would be entitled to deal with the minority in the most tyrannical manner. I held a 1406 meeting in my Constituency the other day, and I invited every trade unionist to attend. Some 1,200 attended. I put it to them1 that if a man were in a minority he would be a marked man. A trade unionist got up and said, "There are no marked men in trade unionism," but he was met by fifty voices, "Ain't there? There are plenty in Gloucester." I have never hesitated to put before my Constituency exactly my views on the matter, and the majority of my Constituents are trade unionists. It is an industrial constituency, and I have twenty-eight unions represented in it. If a member in the minority chooses to claim exemption the same methods would be used against him that are used to-day to compel a man to belong to a union. The safeguards in the Bill are purely illusory. I challenge the Attorney-General or any man to deny it. If a man who has contributed to the funds of his union for twenty or thirty years with the expectation and the right of receiving benefits in return for the money he has contributed sets himself up in opposition to the executive or the majority of that union, they can refuse to give him a single penny of benefit.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt is provided for in the Bill.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLHow is it provided for in the Bill? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman refer to Clause 3, Subsection (2)? That simply provides that the man shall not be placed in any inferior or disadvantageous position. But how is that going to be enforced?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are, I believe, going to discuss at a later stage the whole question of the effect of Clause 3. There are Amendments down, and I should like to know, if the matter is raised now, will it be open to me to reply on this Amendment.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. and learned Gentleman himself raised the point. I think it was a natural invitation to continue the discussion.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI only sought to point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite accurately stating the effect of the Bill, and I wished to draw his attention to the presence of this Clause in the Bill.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI quite knew of the Clause; it is one of those which are utterly 1407 illusory. It does nothing more than express a pious opinion that a man ought not to be damnified. But there is no pro vision in the Bill which will save him from being damnified. There is no provision, should the Bill be passed in its present form, to prevent a man being absolutely debarred from enforcing his right to benefits. I do not think the Attorney-General will deny that he may be absolutely debarred from enforcing his right to any benefit whatever, simply because he has set himself up against a majority of the members of the union; if the majority should refuse him any benefit he has no remedy whatever. That is what makes the Clause a sham. There is no substance in it. There is no use in introducing into the Bill a Clause to the effect that a man shall not be damnified if he does a certain thing unless you also—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we had better have the discussion on that point on Clause 3.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI wish to submit that this Amendment is necessary if we are going to give effect to the statements which have been made by the Attorney-General and by other Members of the Government that, when this Bill is passed, every man shall be absolutely free to contribute or refuse to contribute towards the political funds. But I submit it is necessary not to put the initiative on the man to claim exemption, to put himself forward as a man who docs not wish to contribute. You ought to put upon those who desire to contribute to these funds the onus of taking the first step towards making that contribution. Why should you say to a man, "You shall contribute unless and until you have gone through some formality in order to relieve yourself." Why should you not say to those men who want to contribute, "If you want to contribute by all means do so." You are putting the onus on the wrong shoulders, and you are doing it because you know you will thereby force many men who do not want to to contribute to these funds.
§ Mr. WARDLEI desire to say a few words, because of the misrepresentation in regard to this matter which has arisen out of certain words used by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. It is one thing to say—as the hon. Member has said—that in his opinion men ought to be members of a union, and that they ought to contribute to the Parliamentary fund 1408 when it is established. It is quite a different thing to say that when this Bill comes into operation they would then be treated unfairly, as has been suggested by speakers opposite. I want to deny absolutely, on behalf of the trade unions, that there will be any such coercion exercised, or any of the penalising which has been referred to. I want to say further that, from the historic standpoint, what the Noble Lord said with regard to Mr. Osborne is absolutely untrue. I will not go into that now. This is neither the time nor place to do so. But with regard to the other case the Noble Lord mentioned, I will have inquiries made. I am pretty well convinced that in that case also the reason stated by the Noble Lord for the expulsion of the man was not the real reason for which he was expelled. In the machinery of trade unionism, there is an opportunity for a man who is aggrieved, or who thinks he is improperly deprived of his benefits, to appeal to his fellows, and he gets a fair chance and a fair trial. It is unfair, therefore, to suggest that men would be tyrannised over or penalised in connection with this matter. I have myself down an Amendment which would meet this particular point. It will provide that if a member is aggrieved or' thinks he has been interfered with in regard to the matter of benefits, the Registrar is to have an opportunity of deciding whether the man is or is not aggrieved.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONAre the Government going to accept it?
§ Mr. WARDLEI cannot say, but it shows our bona fidesin the matter. We want to give a fair trial and a fair chance to every man. We only want fair play; we have no desire to coerce men to pay if they have a strong objection to so doing. But we do say that in the case of those members who have no strong objection to pay, with whom it is not a matter of conscience or who may not have sufficient moral courage to say that they will decline to pay, we ask that in those cases we should have the facilities we already possess for getting in our ordinary contributions.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONThe hon. Member made, in the latter part of his speech, a very weighty and forcible remark. Let me, if I can, put the position as it seems to us on this side. The ballot is part and parcel of this Bill, and the Government 1409 have recognised that secrecy and protection are required. There is definite provision to secure that. Therefore we may take it that in the opinion of the Government it is necessary that the voting should be secret, because obviously it might mean, if it were not secret, that the minority would suffer. No one would say for a single moment that trade unionists are any worse than any of us. But we do say that they are subject to the ordinary emotions and passions of human beings, and it is asking us to outrage common sense to say that at a time of burning political excitement, when a small minority assert their rights against a large majority, that majority has not the power, and may not very often have the will, to make it very disagreeable for the minority. There is not one Labour Member who would contradict that statement in a conversation in a private room, but somehow the House of Commons is supposed to be a place where any argument will do for any purpose. That it would be contrary to human nature and common sense is not denied by the other side. Let me ask hon. Members for a moment to look at it from the common sense point of view. It is recognised by the Government in their own Bill that the minority should be protected by secrecy; that is definitely admitted. As my hon. Friend pointed out, unless you do something in the, direction indicated by the Amendment, does it not become an absolute farce? You, in one place, proclaim secrecy, and in the next line you proclaim publicity.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThis Amendment does not give secrecy.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONIt will give secrecy in this sense, that it puts on the shoulders of those who wish to go into politics the burden of saying that it is their wish. It does not put the burden on the minority of dissenting from what may be believed to be the general opinion.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONEWhere is the secrecy of that?
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONThe effect is perfectly plain. If a man has voted in the minority in the ballot it is kept entirely secret. But to ask any man who has voted against a political fund to announce to an official of his trade union, on an open form, that he dissents from paying any contribution to the political fund does away with 1410 all secrecy. It is a contradiction in the plainest possible terms to say that it is secrecy, and it must be borne in mind that the Government themselves have declared that they consider secrecy necessary. I frankly admit that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman goes some way to meet our objection. I do not wish to commit myself to the exact terms. I recognise his good faith in bringing it forward. It shows he thinks that there is a good deal of force in our arguments and he has done his best to meet them. But take the case of a member who is in the minority. Assume that he has become the subject of public indignation. Hon. Members of course will say that he is deserving of it; they will say, "Here is a man taking all the benefits of the trade union and refusing to pay the contribution. Such a man is a low creature." Public opinion would be against him. No hon. Gentleman opposite will disagree with that. It is, I know, human nature; they would make it very hot for such a man because he is taking the benefits without bearing the burden. They would say he is a low creature.
§ Mr. W. E. HARVEYSo he is.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONThat is the view which is held. I am not passing any opinion upon it or saying whether it is right or wrong. That opinion exists, and it has been frankly admitted by the hon. Gentleman who so exuberantly interrupted me just now. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wardle) has seen that, and has seen that that indignation so expressed may result in coercion, I do not say in many cases, but in some cases being applied to the unpopular dissentients. He has endeavoured to meet that. He says that if that unpopularity or that pressure result in injury to the man, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may make an order remedying the breach of the rule, and that on being recorded in the County Court it may be enforced as an order of the County Court. I think that goes a long way to meet us, but are the Government going to accept it?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSindicated assent.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTONIf that is so I will say no more. I think they have gone a good way to meet us in this matter, and I shall reserve anything further I have to say upon it until we get to that Amendment.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSI desire to make a submission for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been discussed on the basis that the three Amendments hang together, although strictly and technically we are only on the first Amendment. If you take the three Amendments together, what you find is this, a proposal that those who desire to contribute to a Parliamentary fund may do so; that is to say, it is left quite voluntary on their part. I do not think there can be any question at all that at the present moment the law is that there may be such a voluntary contribution, therefore there is no need for an Act of Parliament to say that. Inasmuch as the purpose of this Bill is to amend the law with respect to the objects and powers of trade unions, and inasmuch as those Amendments would not be amending the law, I submit that if it is not entirely out of order, at all events it would be so reversing the purpose of the Bill as to land the House in a position of having to go through a First and Second Reading again if the Amendment were carried. I submit that point with great respect for your decision.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member is comparing small things with great. I do not think the alteration which he suggests could really be considered as of such a nature as to convert the Bill into a new Bill.
Mr. C. EDWARDSIn dealing with the Amendment I want, first of all, to refer to the argument just used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Lyttelton). Apparently he has come to the decision that if there is a minority who are required to sign their names contracting out of the provisions of the Bill, that is glaring publicity; but if it is the majority who are required to sign their names contracting into the Bill, then it is profound secrecy. Secrecy and publicity cannot depend upon whether a minority or a majority write their names, so that part of the argument cannot be used to sustain the reasonableness or otherwise of this series of Amendments. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. H. Terrell) repudiated with a good deal of indignation and warmth the idea that members of the Bar are members of a union. He said that they had to possess certain qualifications. That is quite true. One of the qualifications they have to possess is that they belong to one or other of the unions, otherwise called the Inns; another qualification 1412 is a capacity to eat so many dinners spreading over a certain period. I have been an official of a trade union, and I am a member of the Bar, and I say without hesitation that the regulations with which I am faced at the Bar are a great deal more drastic from a trade union point of view than the regulations with which I was acquainted in my trade union days. I take a typical trade union rule: That a bricklayer is required, if he goes outside a particular area into another area, to take his own bricklayer's labourer. But, in connection with the Bar, if I go outside my circuit to another circuit, I have not only to take a bricklayer's labourer in the form of my clerk, but I have also to employ alongside of me another bricklayer.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the Amendment.
Mr. C. EDWARDSI must apologise for having been drawn to the question of the analogy between the Bar and a trade union. This Amendment proceeds on the assumption that there is coercion, and unfair coercion, applied to men who do not see eye to eye with the Labour party. That is what it really amounts to. I am in a position to speak with some degree of authority on this question. At the last election I ran for a constituency, with a Conservative on one side and a representative of the Labour party on the other side. I have not heard from the time of that election up to now any single echo of coercion of those men inside the ranks of the Miners' Federation who did not see eye to eye with the Labour party, and who took either the Conservative or the Liberal side. I do not believe that there is this wholesale coercion and intimidation. I believe there is exactly the same regard for liberty of thought and freedom of expression and action on the part of trade unions as there is on the part of any political organisation. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester suggested that if a man were, in fact, penalised by being expelled from his union after paying contributions for years, because of his political views, he had no remedy. That is not true. At this moment he has a complete and effective remedy, inasmuch as he can get an injunction restraining the expulsion, if the expulsion has been based upon any other ground than that of an actual breach of the rules on the part of that man. This Bill makes a sufficient and ample provision for seeing that the rule in that respect 1413 shall be perfectly fair, both to the majority and to the minority.
§ Mr. SANDYSI confess I was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Clement Edwards), who speaks with some authority as the legal representative of the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] I am sorry if I have attributed to the hon. Member qualifications to which he is not entitled. I expected that we should have had from him some observations of a rather more practical character in regard to the Amendment under discussion than the speech to which we have just listened. Although he gave us some very interesting reminiscences of his legal career, and some facts in connection with the bricklaying industry, he did not deal with the question under discussion. Neither did the Attorney-General deal with the question, which is one of the most important that can be raised in connection with this Bill, in a manner which I should consider satisfactory. In effect he told us that the principal objection he had to this Amendment was that if it were embodied in the Bill it would, as a matter of fact, change the whole character of the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSChange the Bill completely.
§ Mr. SANDYSIt might, of course, be necessary to make some changes in the Bill if this Amendment were embodied in it, but those changes would be in a direction of altering that portion of the Bill which, as it stands at present, we are entitled to regard as inconsistent and illogical, and bringing it more into accordance with common sense and what are supposed to be the underlying principles of the Bill itself. What are supposed to be the general principles of the Bill? The object of the Bill, surely is to allow trade unions to enter into political activity, subject to certain definite conditions, one of which is that no member of any trade union shall be forced to contribute to political funds unless he desires to do so. In the course of his speech the Attorney-General threw us into some, perhaps unintentional, confusion as to what are the principles of the Bill. There is an underlying fallacy in all the speeches made from the other side of the House both in connection with this Amendment and those which were moved yesterday. The assumption of hon. Members opposite is that political activities are now to become 1414 one of the primary objects of trade unions. Surely the very terms in which this Bill is framed and the existence of the Bill itself show that it is nothing of the kind. The primary objects of a trade union are clearly defined. The political objects into which trade unions are to be allowed to enter can only be regarded as subordinate objects. It is only intended that in certain definite conditions and under certain provisions, clearly stated in the Bill, that trade unions are to be allowed to enter into political activity at all. Therefore, surely, if that is the underlying principle of the Bill—and I maintain that it is—that the primary objects of trade unions are still to remain—those statutory objects which are summarised in Clause 2 of the Bill—the general assumption should be, with regard to the wishes of members of the union, not that every member of the union is anxious to contribute to the political fund, unless he expresses an opposite view, but rather that any member of the union who desires to contribute to the political fund should definitely express his willingness and desire so to do, and it is for this reason that I shall support the Amendment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe point which is at issue between the two sides is a very narrow one. It is as to the most effective way of giving protection to the person who may be described as the conscientious objector. The method suggested in the Bill is that the conscientious objector should ask for exemption from payment of the contribution. The method proposed in the Amendment is that every man who is willing to pay a contribution should sign a notice stating his willingness. It is suggested by hon. Members opposite that the latter method is the better way of giving protection, apparently on the ground that greater secrecy would be preserved. I was unable to follow the argument that there would be greater secrecy. If we consider how this would work in practice we see that there would be no greater secrecy, but there would be a great deal more irritation, and consequently a much greater likelihood of injustice being done to the minority of conscientious objectors. What would happen if it were necessary for every man who is willing to sign a notice to that effect? It would mean that the officials of a trade union which had decided to adopt political objects would have to go round and canvas their members and ask which of them were willing to sign, and the man 1415 who refused would naturally be regarded as a disagreeable person who did not succumb to the blandishments of the officials. On the other hand, under the scheme proposed by the Bill, the man will make his application for exemption. He will not thereby cause anything like the same degree of irritation as would be caused if the alternative
§ method in the Amendment were adopted, and on these grounds I hold that the method suggested in the Bill is a better protection to a member of the minority than that which the Opposition put forward.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 67.
1417| Division No. 563.] | AYES. | [7.50 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Farrell, James Patrick | Maclean, Donald |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Adamson, William | Ffrench, Peter | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Field, William | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Adklns, Sir W. Ryland D. | Fitzgibbon, John | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Flavin, Michael Joseph | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Furness, Stephen | Manfield, Harry |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Gilhooly, James | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Gill, A. H. | Meagher, Michael |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Ginnell. L. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, ft.) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Millar, James Duncan |
| Barton, W. | Glanville, Harold James | Molloy, M. |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Goldstone, Frank | Mooney, J. J. |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Morison, Hector |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Guest, Major Hon. c. H. C. (Pembroke) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Bentham, G. J. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Muldoon, John |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Gwynn, Stephen (Lucius (Galway) | Munro, R. |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hackett, J. | Neilson, Francis |
| Boland, John Pius | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) | Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Brace, William | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Brady, P. J. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Dowd, John |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Grady, James |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hayward, Evan | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Hazleton, Richard | O'Malley, William |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Shee, James John |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Hinds, John | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hodge, John | Parry, Thomas F. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hogge, James Myles | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Clough, William | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Clynes, John R. | Holt, Richard Durning | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hudson, Walter | Pointer, Joseph |
| Cotton, William Francis | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | John, Edward Thomas | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll) | Radford, G. H. |
| Cullinan, J. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe) | Reddy, M. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| De Forest, Baron | Jowett, Frederick William | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.t |
| Delany, William | Joyce, Michael | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Keating, Matthew | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Dillon, John | Kilbride, Denis | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneslde) |
| Doris, W. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Duffy, William J. | Leach, Charles | Roch, Walter F. |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Lewis, John Herbert | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Rowlands, James |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Lundon, Thomas | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lynch, A. A. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | McGhee, Richard | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. | Tennant, Harold John | White, Sir Luke (Yorks., E.R.) |
| Sheeny, David | Thomas, J. H. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Shortt, Edward | Thorne, William (West Ham) | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir James Allsebrook | Toulmin, Sir George | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clltheroe) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.) | Wadsworth, J. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Worcs., N.) |
| Snowden, Philip | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Winfrey, Richard |
| Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Wardle, George J. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Sutherland, J. E. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Sutton, John E. | Watt, Henry A. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Webb, H. | |
| Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Boles, Lieut-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hall, Fred (Dulwich) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Cassel, Felix | Harris, Henry Percy | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hickman, Colonel T. E. | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Horner, Andrew Long | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Hunt, Rowland | Stanier, Beville |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hunter, Sir C. R. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Ingleby, Holcombe | Stewart, Gershom |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Kimber, Sir Henry | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Falle, Bertram Godfray | Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Forster, Henry William | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon A. (S.Geo.,Han.Sq.) | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Gardner, Ernest | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | |
| Gastrell, Major W. H. | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Gibbs, G. A. | Neville, Reginald J. N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Wolmer and Sir P. Magnus |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | |
| Greene, W. R. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
Question, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GILLI beg to move, to leave out the words "is unwilling" ["that he is unwilling to contribute"], and to insert instead thereof the word "objects."
8.0 P.M.
I am trying to bring this Amendment into accordance with general legislation in connection with these matters. The principle of the Bill is that a ballot should be taken, and, if the majority decides in favour of engaging in political objects, the union should make provision for exemption for those who do not wish to pay. In my opinion these words "is unwilling" are not at all definite enough. When the ballot has taken place and the members have decided to engage in political objects the onus ought to be put upon the person to do something more than simply say he is unwilling. When we deal with vaccination no one is allowed to get out of that by saying he is unwilling to have a child vaccinated. He must have a conscientious objection. The same thing applies under the Education Act. If a person wants to take a child out of school while religious education is being given he has to declare a conscientious objection. If a man thinks he is not being fairly treated under the 1418 Income Tax he must make a definite appeal. It is easy enough for anyone to say he is unwilling. In almost all walks of life if men could get out of paying anything by saying they were unwilling we should have a good many persons making use of that description. It has been said by the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) more than anyone else, that men would be marked men if they claimed exemption in these circumstances. Any official who attempted to take advantage of any person who simply complied with the law would be in a rather difficult place himself. The members themselves watch what is done very carefully, and they see to it that their colleagues are protected so far as benefits are concerned. To impute motives in regard to making men marked men is rather unworthy of the Noble Lord. I think this is a reasonable Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will accept this Amendment. I do not think it is necessary to take up time discussing it.
§ Viscount WOLMERI really think there is more in this Amendment than the Attorney-General makes out. I confess if I were a trade unionist and was unwilling to support the Labour party because I disapproved of their policy on some vital question—for instance, the religious question, or because I had on some minor question a conscientious objection—I would feel justified in using the word "objects." If the Amendment means anything, it only means that a member should be allowed to contract out of the Act in a case where he has a real, conscientious objection. If I understood the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) aright, what he wanted was a conscientious objection such as is entertained to the Education Act of 1902 by passive resisters. Before I could agree to this Amendment, I would like to be assured that it does not mean that the minority have got to place their objections on a level with those of passive resisters and of those who claim exemption under the vaccination law. If it is a question of conscientious objection, I should oppose the Amendment very strongly indeed; but if it is merely a question of drafting, I agree with the Attorney-General that it is not worth while making a fuss about it. If the hon. Member really wants to make the minority say that principles which they conscientiously hold are at stake, I think he is going a great deal too far, and my view is that a man ought to be able to withhold a contribution to the Labour party funds on grounds which may seem to other people exceedingly flimsy. There should be no pressure, direct or indirect, on any man to contribute to the Labour party funds.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIt has been stated that this is a drafting Amendment, but in my view it is nothing of the kind. The Attorney-General has a simple faith in trade unions which is almost a fetish. I say that these progressive Amendments, both upstairs and here, involve not only the possibility but the probability of pressure being used. You are driving a man into the open by steps. You profess to give him secrecy under the ballot. Secrecy of what? Secrecy as to whether ho is in favour of a union engaging in political objects at all. You first of all, under the Bill as it stands, make him come forward and say that he is unwilling to contribute, and now you go further and make him say that he positively objects. The Attorney-General accepts the Amendment at once, but I see elements of great 1420 danger in it. Secrecy and pressure are-interwoven in this matter.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS indicated dissent.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThe right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I take that view. It seems to me that secrecy is necessary in order to prevent pressure. If you have first of all a negative form of expressing unwillingness to contribute, that is consistent with indifference to political action or positive dislike of the political action likely to be adopted by the majority. But when you proceed further and make a man object, you are making the original secrecy with which the ballot is surrounded less effective or absolutely inoperative. If there was going to be no question of pressure, there would be no need for the Bill at all. At the present time, according to the existing law, it is declared by the Osborne Judgment itself that members of trade unions, if they wish to furnish money for political objects, can form their own committees and collect their own funds. They can do that as an aggregate of individuals. In the past they have been unsuccessful in getting funds for political activity, and they come now for further powers. They want to put pressure, if possible, on a man, and you lend yourselves to that. Instead of making a man say that he is unwilling to contribute, you make him come before his order and say he objects. Let me point out what a vast difference there is in a man coming forward and saying he is unwilling to contribute and saying he objects. It is the moral aspect of the case to which I am directing attention. If you had allowed a man who is willing to come forward and who would be pleased and proud to come forward, to say, "I am going to do this," there would be no harm done, but instead of that you make a man, who is not pleased and proud to come forward, say, "I object," and thereby incur the odium of his fellows. Do you think that is fair to the individual? If safeguards are necessary—and by your own admission they are, for you have provided for secrecy under Clause 4, and you have inserted provisions in Clause 3 by which a man shall not have undue pressure brought upon him—why shape the Bill so that a man is going to be exposed to every possibility of pressure? You are dealing with a state of things in which he may be indifferent to political matters altogether. If you insert the word "objects" you import two things, namely 1421 in the first place, that he objects to contribute, and secondly, that he objects to the method of the expenditure which is likely to be made. I cannot understand how any man, trade unionist or not, who has any regard for the liberty of the working men of this country, can support a state of things like that. I am profoundly surprised that the Attorney-General should treat it as a matter of course, and that the Labour party should treat it as a matter of drafting. Bear in mind in dealing with this question that you say a trade unionist ought to contribute because he is enjoying the benefits of an industrial trade union. Do you think it is pleasure for him to pay for things which are not benefits, and which are distasteful to him? There is a great difference between getting benefits from an industrial trade union, which are certain, and paying for things done by a trade union with which you entirely disagree. I see here a departure from elementary liberty in asking a man to come forward and say that he is unwilling to contribute. I see an opportunity for pressure in asking a man to come forward and object. Not only does experience show that pressure is likely to be exercised, but on the form of the Bill as drafted the Government seem to expect it.
§ Viscount WOLMEROn a point of Order. This Amendment would make the Clause read, "objects to contribute." Should it not be made to read "objecting to contribute"?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is open to the Noble Lord to move that Amendment.
§ Mr. PETOI am in complete agreement with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for That. Is the Attorney-General really so simple as he claims to be in stating that the hon. Member for Bolton has risen to move this series of Amendments because of his burning ardour for some slightly better drafting in a Government Bill? The hon. Member for Bolton is much more candid than that. He did not claim any such intention. He said he moved it for practically one reason only, because the words "not willing" are not strong enough.
§ Mr. PETOI accept the statement of the hon. Member, but I want to remind the Attorney-General of what he said on the Second Reading. Dealing with the case 1422 of a man who joins his trade union for industrial benefits, he said
that man is also entitled to the protection of the Government when he says, that although he is a member of the union he objects to his money being used for the purposes of paying the expenses of a Member of Parliament or a candidate for Parliament.I notice that the Attorney-General used the word "objects" there, but he was speaking colloquially. In stating on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government view was that the man was entitled to protection, he was undertaking a very grave responsibilty.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWill the hon. Member mind telling us what, in his view, is really the crucial difference between saying he "is unwilling" and he "objects"? I think probably "objects" is, if anything, stronger, but to me it is so subtle that I cannot see that it is going to make any difference to the trade union.
§ Mr. PETOWe proceed in these matters step by step. This is another step in the direction of pointing out more plainly the minority who do not agree with the political views of the majority. The very word suggests an obvious name which will be used for that handful of people who will be called the objectors. If that is not the object of this Amendment, I would very much like the hon. Members below the Gangway to tell us what the object is. If there is no difference, as the Attorney-General thinks, or only a very slight difference, why do they put down these Amendments and press them upon the House? In what way is this Amendment going to help them if it is not going to help them to carry out their political work? It will help in one direction only, the direction of bringing pressure to bear upon the minority to make it fall into line with the rest and subscribe to the political funds of the union. Coupled with the Amendment which has been negatived in the last Division, it is very unfortunate that the Government should be so willing to strengthen the pressure which is bound to be brought upon these people, who by the hypothesis of the Bill, have got to signify before they can get this exemption that they are a minority of people who are unwilling. To insist that these people shall say "we object" not necessarily to the political opinions of the trade union, but to contribute to the political fund, makes it infinitely easier for the majority to say, "these people are mean and unfriendly people who ought not to be 1423 allowed to be members of the union, who certainly ought not to be treated in the same way as other members who are in accord with us." If there is any real substantial meaning in what the Attorney-General said on the Second Reading, and in what is said to be the main basis of the Bill, that they are going to give effective protection to The minority, then I ask the Attorney-General at the last moment to withdraw his approval of this Amendment. Unless there is some very strong reason why it makes a better Bill, it is most unfair on the part of the Attorney-General to impose this still further slight disability, even if it is by way of pinprick, on the minority who are already in such a position of disadvantage.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. WARDLEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (c), to insert the words:
"If any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and The Registrar of Friendly Societies, after giving the complainant, and any representative of the union an opportunity of being heard, may, if he considers that such a breach has been committed, make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances; and any such order, on being recorded in the County Court, may be enforced as if it had been an order of the County Court."
We quite recognise the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter and feel that to some extent we have a right to meet them. Their fears in our opinion are groundless with regard to any coercion of members after this Bill becomes an Act, but in order to meet their susceptibilities, and in order that this shall not be a matter for the Courts, but that there shall be a proper tribunal which will not lead the unions into Court, we have put down this Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERIt gives me the greatest possible pleasure to second this Amendment, because I recognise in it a very great change of attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Stockport, in proposing the Amendment, has said that he has done so simply 1424 to allay our fears, although he does not recognise that there is really any ground for them at all. Of course we accept that statement, and think that it is a perfectly consistent ground for hon. Members to say, "We do not admit that there is any likelihood of this Amendment being required, but nevertheless we are ready to insert it in order to meet the argument which you have brought forward." This Amendment alters the Bill in a very important respect. It practically means that all the safeguards of the Bill, on which the Government have laid the greatest possible stress, have some reality about them, instead of being, as they were in our opinion before that, a fraud and a sham. I understand that this Amendment has been moved largely to meet the pledge that was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty when he was Home Secretary and Minister in charge of the Bill. He said that he was prepared to give the right to trade unionists to sue their unions if they alleged that they were damnified in availing themselves of the privileges given to them by this Bill. The Attorney-General, when this pledge was pointed out to the Government, then stated that, although he was not willing to carry out that pledge to the letter, he would be perfectly willing to allow appeal to be made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I gather that he has since arranged that the Labour party should be called upon to move the Amendment. I do not say—
§ Mr. WARDLEI moved it upstairs in another form.
§ Viscount WOLMERI do not think it was actually moved; we never had a debate upon it, we had a Division upon it. This Amendment was certainly never moved upstairs.
§ Mr. WARDLEI put down the substance of this Amendment upstairs, but it was not moved because we were told by the Attorney-General that it was unnecessary.
§ Viscount WOLMEROf course I accept the hon. Member's statement as to his intention. If I remember rightly, I think that the Amendment he did put down was really a very different one from this—one that did not go nearly so far as the present one, and which was more ambiguous. The Amendment which was on the Paper during the Committee stage was not nearly so satisfactory as this Amendment. In support of the present proposal, I should 1425 like to say that I do not think it goes wholly to meet our contention. The original proposal was that if a member of a trade union felt that he had a grievance, he could take that grievance to the Law Courts and have it fought out there. Hon. Members opposite have an invincible dislike to the law. If that is so —and I believe it is the case with a great number of others—then we on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to compromise on the Registrar of Friendly Societies, provided that he is given sufficient power to carry out his decisions. That, I understand, this Amendment does confer. Therefore, I regard this Amendment as a very important one indeed. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper they will see at the beginning that there were two proposals made on this side of the House which were never discussed— the first one because it was out of Order, and the second because the hon. Member who was to move it had not arrived in time, and had thought there would be a Debate on the first Amendment. Those two Amendments were put forward simply and solely with the same object as the hon. Member for Stockport has in moving his Amendment—that is to say, they were designed to give to trade unionists who felt they had a grievance the right to appeal to some tribunal, either the Law Courts or the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and have that grievance set right by authority of that tribunal. We certainly would not have put down those Amendments if the hon. Member had assured us that he would move this Amendment. I recognise that the hon. Member for Stockport has sought to meet us in this respect. From first to last my objection to this Bill has been that it was an imposture, a fraud, and a sham. It professed to give the minority the right to contract out of the political levy, and to give the minority safeguards, yet there was no method in the Bill at all by which those safeguards could be enforced.
I have said before that this question of safeguards is, in my opinion, the whole crux of the Bill, and I confess to feeling infinitely flattered that the force with which he urged our contention in the Standing Committee has at last been felt by hon. Members opposite, that all that we advanced upstairs has not been in vain, and that they are prepared to come forward and make a substantial concession on the point. The reason why I attach so much importance to this Amendment is that I speak in this House on behalf of a 1426 large body of Conservative trade unionists in my Constituency. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), for whom I have the greatest respect, I am sure will not contradict me in what I say, that in that part of Lancashire which I represent a great number of trade unionists habitually or occasionally vote Conservative. Those men have felt very strongly on this subject, and I have received strenuous representations from them that this Bill would have placed them in a very unfair position, because the right which was extended to them to contract out of the political levy was an illusory one. I hope that when this Amendment is carried it will not be so. I hope that those men who are Conservative—who have every bit as much right to their political opinions as hon. Members opposite, and who have the right to be Conservative if they choose, however misguided hon. Members opposite may think them—will have a perfect right to refuse the political levy, and that, if they suffer for so doing, they will have the right to take the case to an impartial tribunal. It is for these reasons I second this Amendment. In my opinion, the Labour party have acted in a very sensible and a very straightforward manner. They have admitted the force of our contention, that without this Amendment the Bill would have been a fraud and a sham. They have met us half way, and I congratulate them heartily upon it. Although this Bill is not satisfactory, although it has its blemishes, in my opinion this Amendment will make the measure real, instead of a fraud and a sham.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think the Noble Lord who has just spoken has misunderstood the object of this Amendment when he suggests that without it the Bill would practically be a fraud and a sham. I imagine that he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek when he said that.
§ Viscount WOLMERI protest against that.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf the Noble Lord objects to my saying that he spoke with his tongue in his cheek, I withdraw it. I certainly did not think that he could be serious when he said that the Bill was a fraud and a sham without the Amendment, and that it was a success to get the Amendment put into it. If he does so all I can say is he is arrogating to himself a credit which I do not think he is justified in claiming from what has happened, and he 1427 is also speaking, forgetting what did happen. Let me remind him what did take place. I have before me the Amendment that was before us in Committee which was moved in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), by the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and by another hon. Member. That is the Amendment which is down on the Paper, and one which was proposed by them in order to get rid of some fears which they had that if they had not some Clause of this kind in the Bill the result would be that they might be taken to the Courts on actions or for injunctions, and consequently be involved in very expensive and costly litigation. That was the reason they proposed it. They had some conversation with me, and apparently misunderstood what I said with reference to it. I said it certainly was not clear that actions would lie, and I am not at all certain that actions will lie except, of course, for injunctions against expulsion from membership. At any rate, I am not prepared, as I told them, to state on my authority so that they could rely on it, that it would be impossible to bring actions for injunctions under Clause 3, paragraph (c).
Thereupon they said, as it seemed to me very naturally and rightly, if that is the case it is better to have this Clause in, so that we may have it in this form that the Registrar of Friendly Societies is to decide this question instead of being taken into Court, and having expensive litigation, with sometimes, I am afraid, expensive counsel. I am making no suggestion against anyone, but no one who is familiar with the history of litigation of trade unions will doubt but that employers have in the past, and I am speaking with definite knowledge, paid men to come forward, paid members of trade unions to come forward to bring actions in order to prevent a trade union expending its money, it might be for strike pay, or in some other way. These actions have cost very large sums of money, and have been taken to the House of Lords. I am making no complaint against them; it is perfectly legitimate warfare, but that kind of thing ought not to take place under this Bill. At the same time it is quite right that there should be some tribunal with the simplest possible procedure to provide a remedy without any difficulty of any sort or kind, and where there is no expense and no appeal. The matter goes before a man 1428 who is used to dealing with trade unions, who lives in the atmosphere of trade unions, and knows fully all the points which sometimes may look a little small in Courts of Justice, but which are real points to trade unionists. The Registrar of Trade Unions is a man who can understand those points and deal with them. For that reason I think my hon. Friend is perfectly wise and right in the interest of trade unions in his proposal. That by doing so he has satisfied the Noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite is no argument against it. If it did satisfy them, and if they think the Bill is better it may be that they will not vote against the Third Reading. That seems to me to be an argument all in favour of it. I am not suggesting that they are in any way bound. It helps to relieve apprehensions some persons may have, and, at any rate, trade unionists have acted very wisely in the interests of trade unions in saying, "We will not run the risk of actions in Court."
§ Mr. STEPHEN WALSHAs one who has had a good deal to do with the trouble that resulted in the Osborne Judgment, and as one who advised the acceptance of this Bill as it left the Committee stage, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that this particular Amendment, now when I see it in cold print, is one that will inflict just as great damage on trade unions in the future as the Osborne Judgment has in the past. The reason why I have so consistently advised trade unionists' acceptance of this Bill was not that the present Bill was a complete satisfaction of their honest demands, but because it did really give us the chance of keeping out of the Courts; and now a new danger is proposed to be instituted. By whom? By our very friends. Of course, the Attorney-General says that this would be easy of access, and not very costly, and that you will get rid of injunctions, and, I suppose, all will be calm and bright thereafter. As a matter of fact is it quite so easy to get before the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Because of the infinite friction that will be created under this very Amendment we are inviting the thousand and one out of the millions of trade unionists constantly to take us before the Registrar. In addition to that you are creating a new offence that has hitherto been unknown to trade unions. The Amendment says:—
"if any member of a trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this. Section."
1429 Of course, I will be told by lawyers whatever grievance he complains of must be strictly limited to breaches of any rule made in pursuance of this Section. Yes, of course, and so soon as the poor simple fellow alleges he is aggrieved by this Section he will have the lawyers saying, "You are perfectly right; you are aggrieved by this Section, and, of course, you must get along to the Registrar." You are therefore, first of all, making a new authority. The Registrar's functions have hitherto been confined to seeing whether the rules laid down by the society were in pursuance and in accordance with the Friendly Societies Acts. His powers have been strictly limited to that, but now you are making him a judge in the first instance, and you go on to say,
"if he considers that such a breach has been committed he may make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances, and any such order on being recorded in the County Courts may be enforced as if it had been an order of the County Court."
The County Court is being brought in, the Registrar is being brought in, new functions are being created, unlimited powers are being given to the Registrar. He may "make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances." In the Bill which had as its object their settlement, the difficulties, friction, and injustice created by the Osborne Judgment are being reopened once more, and under a Clause which is given to us by our Friends. It is perfectly true that it has been proposed by a Member of my own party; it is perfectly true that it stands in the name of a Friend and of a trade unionist. But I recognise my responsibility to my own trade union, as well as the responsibility which up till now I have taken in advising the acceptance of the Bill. That responsibility I am no longer willing to take. Rather than accept the Bill with this Amendment, I would refuse the Bill altogether. It reopens once again, and indeed with far greater probability, the prospect of members taking up this course of action. If the Registrar of Friendly Societies is easy of access, that will only multiply the cases that will be specially raised by prompters such as the Noble Lord {Viscount Wolmer). It is perfectly true that there are Conservative working men and trade unionists of whom he knows in the Newton Division. I think it is equally true that a good deal of the prompting of these 1430 Conservative trade unionists has come from the Noble Lord himself and his Friends.
§ Viscount WOLMERNot at all.
§ Mr. WALSHWhether that be the case or not, it is very curious indeed that working men with 25s. a week can spend thousands of pounds in the Law Courts. That crime—because it is nothing else than a crime—against trade unions will be repeated manifold under this Amendment. I am not prepared to accept it, and sooner than accept such a Clause I will vote against the Bill.
§ Mr. BRACEI think my hon. Friend must have spoken under very serious misapprehension as to the meaning of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend. If my view could be reconciled with that of the Noble Lord opposite (Viscount Wolmer) or with that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh), I should be opposed to the Amendment. It seems to me that what we have to do is to apply our minds to the actual practical working of trade unions under this Bill when it becomes an Act. This Amendment applies in connection with Clause 3 (c). If a man feels that he has been forced into a Parliamentary levy and deprived of trade union benefit, under this Amendment he may apply to the Registrar for redress. The Registrar will say "Yes" or "No." The man cannot appear before the Registrar with expensive counsel. If he wants to appear himself he may do so. He has to make out his own case, as we have to make out our case for the trade union. The whole thing is simplified. The Amendment creates a very simple and inexpensive tribunal to settle any grievance that may arise if a minority man feels himself aggrieved. After all, we start with the basal proposition that we cannot make a man responsible for this Parliamentary fund. I wish we could. In my judgment that is the weakness of the whole Bill, and when we come to deal with the Third Reading we shall be able to say that we only accept it as an instalment of what we think we ought to have. But to argue, simply because my hon. Friend proposes an inexpensive tribunal, that we shall be setting up a position infinitely worse than, or as bad as that which existed before the Bill, is, in my view, to take a very extravagant view of the situation. The law at present is that one man can tie up a trade union. One man has done so, and has made us entirely helpless as a political force and 1431 power in the land. Under this Bill, if one individual member of a trade union feels himself aggrieved, he may go to the Registrar of Friendly Societies and get his grievance corrected, and the trade union will yet be free to go on with its political work and activities. I accept the rendering of the Amendment given by the Attorney-General. It would be presumption on my part to assume a knowledge of law in the presence of such an authority. He has told the House of Commons that the explanation he has given is the real legal interpretation of the Amendment. Therefore I accept it. I say, further, that the Amendment has been the subject-matter of discussion and decision with the Labour party, and, whatever my own opinion might be, it is the Amendment of the Labour party, and I stand loyally by it.
Mr. C. EDWARDSHistory has a way of repeating itself in regard to trade union legislation. The speech which the hon. Member (Mr. Brace) has just delivered is in almost precisely the same terms that were used by the chairman of the Labour party in this House when the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 was being discussed. Then the Labour party got into a dilemma; then the Labour party nearly betrayed the whole of the trade unions of the country; and then the Labour party by their spokesman endeavoured to get rid of their own responsibility by suggesting that they accepted the interpretation of the then Attorney-General. I say without hesitation that if this Amendment is carried it will open the door to actions against trade unions in flood and volume hitherto undreamt of.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWhere?
Mr. C. EDWARDSBefore the Registrar. I will use the term "legal proceedings." The Attorney-General has dwelt upon the question of the tribunal, as also has the hon. Member for South Glamorgan. I do not think that the question of the tribunal matters very much, and I am not going to say much about it. But if the process, as suggested, I believe rightly, by the Attorney-General, is going to be easy, simple and cheap, it will encourage a much larger number of aggrieved members to take proceedings. The real crux of the Amendment is in the proposition that members are in future to have a right of enforcing their penalties as against trade unions. At present they have no such right. The Attorney-General 1432 shakes his head. It was decided only the other day by the House of Lords, after the expenditure of some £1,000 or £1,200 by the trade union, that a member has cot a right to enforce benefits.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWhat I said was: that that is not the Amendment. The Amendment only gives him the right, if he is aggrieved by a breach of the law made under this Section.
Mr. C. EDWARDSWe need not be— and I regard this as vital—in the least degree at cross purposes. Let me construe the Amendment. The Amendment refers to a breach under a rule made in pursuance of this Clause. This is Clause 3. Under Clause 3 there are certain rules which may be made and certain conditions laid down. One of them is contained in Sub-section (1), paragraph (c). That says—
"that a member who is exempt from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union, or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union."
What that means is this: that if a member of a union does not desire to be part and parcel of the political section of the union, and manifests any opposition to what may be the dominant Labour party section in the union, and if because of that, that member is refused sick benefit or strike or industrial benefit or—and this is rather the point—is expelled from membership of the body and thus deprived of benefits, friendly or industrial, it means, if any of those things happen, because of a man's political attitude, then a breach of the rule made under this Section has arisen; thereupon he can go to the Registrar and allege that he has been deprived of those benefits, and the Registrar is clothed under this Amendment with absolutely unlimited power. He can make any such order for remedying the breach as he thinks fit, and that order has the force of an order of the County Court. I say, and I say unhesitatingly, that this is an absolutely new law for the trade unions in this country. I say more: It is in effect a repealing of Section 4 of the foundational Act of trade unions, the Act of 1871. That Section says:—
"4. Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding—
1433 It does not even say action—
"instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for a breach of any of the following agreements, namely,
(a) To provide benefits to members…
- 1. Any agreement between members of a trade union as such concerning the conditions on which any members for the time being shall or shall not sell their goods, transact business, employ or be employed.
- 2. Any agreement for the payment by any person of any subscription or penalty to a trade union.
- 3. Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union—
9.0.P.M.
That Section from the foundational Act, from the very charter of the liberties of trade unions, expressly prohibits the right of an aggrieved member to bring any legal proceedings for the purpose of enforcing the payment of his benefits. This Amendment proposes that in future, so long as the aggrieved member shall allege that he has been deprived of those benefits for political purposes, for political reasons, or on political grounds, that he can go in the face of that Fourth Section of the Act of 1871—can go to the Registrar and the Registrar can make any order he likes without limit or stint. It is not a question of tribunal. That is comparatively unimportant. But I do regard this as of vital importance, and I say as one who has stood here and in the country for the preservation of the industrial side of trade unions, much as I regret to oppose the Government on this question, and much as I regret to oppose my hon. Friends here, I shall not only vote against the Amendment, but I shall do my level best, between now and the Third Reading, to warn the trade unionists in the country of the dire peril in which they are placed by the Amendment which opens the door to actions against which the door is now closed, and which undoes the very principle upon which trade unionism was founded in 1871. The Mover of this Amendment does not even make this proposal bilateral. He merely proposes that an aggrieved member can enforce his benefits against the trade union through the Registrar. He docs not even propose to repeal that portion of the Trade Union Act that gives trade unions a grievance Against the member and the right of en- 1434 forcing their contributions. I appeal to Members of the Labour party, for the sake of the future strength of trade unions, for the sake of keeping them free from the harassing and embarrassing litigation which has been so troublesome, to withdraw this Amendment. I hope the. Attorney-General will not insist upon going to a Division. It has been said, and the point is made, that hitherto there have been costly proceedings. Why? There have been costly proceedings by means of injunction to secure what is called the status quo, that is to restore a man to membership—injunctions have not gone beyond that with an aggrieved member in an action against his trade union.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSDoes the hon. Member suggest, supposing the member is expelled and declined the benefits of the union in consequence of a breach of Subsection (1), paragraph (c), that that member would not have the right to go to the Courts and obtain an injunction?
Mr. C. EDWARDSWhat I say is this: that an aggrieved member under the existing law can, if he is expelled, go to the Court, and, as in the case of Howden versus Yorkshire Miners, get an injunction to put him back into the same position of membership as he occupied before. That he can do now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No." I I beg your pardon, that is what he can do under the existing law at the present moment. There are half-a-dozen cases, but what he cannot do, what no Court has yet said he can do, is that when he is replaced in membership he can positively enforce the payment of the benefits provided for in the rules. On the contrary, the House of Lords expressly said the other day that by reason of this very Section 4 of the Act of 1871 that he cannot do that. The sole point is this: If this Amendment becomes law, the position will be then that if a man has been expelled" from his union and deprived of benefits for any other than political reasons, then the extent of his remedy is an injunction to-replace him in membership. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that he has been deprived of his benefits for political reasons he can then have them removed by injunction and get replaced in membership; or, exercising the further right this Amendment gives, he need not proceed by injunction but by a process through the Registrar, and may get what damages the Registrar likes. That is a new power which I regard as exceedingly dangerous.
1435 and I say unhesitatingly that if the Labour Members are well advised, if they really desire to preserve the industrial side of trade unions even at this late hour, they will withdraw this entirely mischievous and destructive Amendment.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThe hon. Gentle man who has just spoken showed great and passionate anxiety for fear there would be an increase in civil proceedings in regard to trade unions. While not doubting the sincerity of his anxiety or the reality of his passion I do hope if this Amendment is passed some weighty consideration will compensate and console him for the moral injury done to trade unions in the multiplication of civil proceedings. The hon. Member has attempted to answer the arguments of the Attorney-General in regard to this Amendment. At the present moment a man can go to the Courts for an injunction, and he can be reinstated in his union. Is the hon. Gentleman so distrustful of trade unions and, in my opinion, so unfair to trade unions, as to say that any trade union which would be ordered by an injunction of the Court to receive a man back to its fold who had been an expelled member, would then withhold the benefits from him? That is the whole of the hon. Gentleman's fear. I am not saying I am as ardent a supporter of trade unionism as he is, but I am certainly not so unfair or unfriendly as to say that, and I candidly confess that a more amazing proposition from one who believes in the trade union movement as an honest movement honestly conducted, I cannot conceive. He conceives this, and it is upon this he works himself into this passion. Under the existing law an injured man whose benefits are taken from him can go to the Courts and demand re-entrance; he can not insist, by reason of Clause 4 of the Trades Union Act of 1870, that the trade unions shall pay any benefits to him, but I ask again, Can anybody on either side of the House conceive a case where a trade union, compelled to receive a man back, would not take him into benefit—
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAMWhile taking his contribution?
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGAnd avail themselves of a technicality? It is too utterly disgraceful to think of; I do not believe that ever was or ever will be done. That one who professes himself so 1436 interested in and identified with the trade union movement should resist this Amendment put forward officially by the Labour party, fills me with surprise, which I will not express too harshly. The hon. and learned Member may be quite justified in his view of the law as to what will result if the Amendment is accepted. May I call his attention to the fact that by reason of the Amendment of the Attorney-General, which we passed to-day, you have left in certain obligations which have statutory obligations, and which therefore can be a matter of appeal to the Courts, namely, that ballots should be taken in accordance with the Act, and that rules should be enforced containing certain enumerated provisions? By the proposed Amendment the rules are to be dealt with only by reference to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Mark the danger you are running if you do not put in the new method of enforcing the rules. You are in this position, that an aggrieved member would go to the Courts for an injunction if he could show no ballot was taken in accordance with the Act. There is no domestic remedy such as is suggested by this Amndment. He could go to the Courts and say I am entitled by the terms of this Act to come to the Courts if there are no rules in force providing so-and-so and so-and-so; and he could say that "no rules in force" mean "no rules in effective force"; and he could go to the Courts for an injunction to enforce any Statute where you have no other remedy and the Court itself must decide as to whether the rules are in effective force. I put that forward as a question of law; I do not know what the Attorney-General may think of it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman it is in consequence of a question of that kind arising as to the jurisdiction of the Court that the provisions under Clause 3 are made. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was by no means clear, and I think I so stated when addressing the House. I said in Committee, and I venture to repeat it, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member will agree with me, that if an injunction was granted in certain circumstances—that is, against expulsion—and that that member was readmitted and that the union ever did such a thing as to refuse benefits, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Courts would find a means of compelling the union to carry out the judgment of 1437 the Court and would not allow itself to be treated with contempt.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and being enforced by the expression of his view, with which I entirely agree, it is unnecessary for me to add anything more on the legal aspect These matters of trade unions are very complex. There is room for all sorts of indefinite and undefined things. Speaking as a lawyer, not upon the merits, which must be determined by those whom the matter more particularly concerns, I want to point out that the passion of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan was vapid and theatrical, and that his law on this matter was of a piece with it.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDThere is no doubt that the Attorney-General made a great deal of the contention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh). There are one or two points in connection with the Amendment that some of us in this quarter of the House would like some more information and explanation upon. It is pretty well understood, so far as the Courts are concerned, that when trade unionists are involved at the present time, and when the question of the expulsion of a member is involved, or anything of that sort, which they think has been done unfairly and in opposition to the rules, they would restore such member. In that case they had got injunctions against trade unions, and insisted upon them admitting the man to membership, and so practically enforcing their will with regard to that matter without any damages and reinstating the man into membership. If the Attorney-General will look at this Amendment I think he will agree that were the parties to enforce this proposal instead of the Registrar-General it is a moral certainty we should have to look very carefully into the wide powers we are giving to this authority. Apparently it is absolutely without limit when once the Registrar-General is satisfied that a grievance on the part of a member who alleges a complaint is justified. If any member of the trade union alleges that he is aggrieved by a breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section he may complain to the Registrar-General and if he consents and agrees that such a breach has been committed he may make such order for remedying the breach as he thinks just under the circumstances. Does that include reinstatement only? Does it give the Registrar power to punish 1438 by damages? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is the only complaint I have to make of the Amendment, and I wish to ask, are we satisfied that we are not giving the Registrar-General by those words absolute power to make whatever order he chooses for the purpose of remedying a grievance. Will that power allow the Registrar to inflict damages upon the trade union, and to impose his will through the Courts afterwards? I confess that by these words we are setting up a new authority which is more friendly than the ordinary Courts and is not so dangerous, but if it is proposed to give to the County Court this enormous power, I should like some limitation upon the power of the Registrar-General, because of what follows immediately after. When once the fiat of the Registrar-General goes forth it becomes an order of the County Court, and then with all our temerity and fear about Courts interfering with us, the moment it is an order of the County Court, it is enforceable by injunction, by contempt and by imprisonment, if the officials of the society will not carry it out.
I wish the Attorney-General could suggest some words which would reinstate the man into his benefit and make some provision for enforcing the rule upon the executive of the managing body of the society. If this power were limited to that, I could understand it, but it seems to me these words are of such wide scope that it would include almost any proposition whatever the Registrar-General decided was in his opinion in any given case put before it, even if it imposed a monetary line upon the society for the damage done to the member. The moment that fiat has gone forth, the whole Courts would be at the disposal of the member to enforce that order upon the society. Is that a strict legal interpretation of the power we are placing in the hands of the Registrar-General? I do not say it is; I do not know what the words imply, and I should like someone friendly to the movement to explain them, because much depends upon those words. Is this an absolute power given to the Registrar to do what he likes and make any mortal order he chooses which he considers just, and you cannot call into question his decision, and the only thing that follows is the enforcement of his order by the Court? Does that power involve a monetary fine upon a member? A man may have damaged a member because of his hostility to the political fund, and this is a dangerous 1439 power to place in the hands of any man without some limitation. I should like to know the exact scope and meaning of those words before I vote for the Amendment. I do not want to pledge myself until I know exactly what this proposal means. I confess it looks dangerous as it stands without some limiting words giving a little more protection than the words seem to imply.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESI confess that when I saw this Amendment on the Paper I regarded it with a considerable amount of doubt and suspicion, not because I feared any evil effects to trade unions, but because I thought it was rather a novel precedent to confer upon an administrative officer the judicial powers contained in this Amendment. I have no hesitation now, in view of all the circumstances, in commending to my hon. Friends below the Gangway this proposal, and I will give the House my reason. One of the most solicitous affairs of the Legislature with regard to trade unions and friendly societies is protection from litigation. If you look not merely at the Trade Unions Acts, where the legislation is very strenuous, and at the Friendly Societies Acts, you will find the same policy pursued. The Section with which we are dealing lays down in very clear and precise language what the duties of the Registrar are to be with regard to the rules which govern the creation of a political fund. It lays down that the payments shall be made out of a separate fund, that the political object shall be approved by the union, and, coming to the critical question in which we are engaged to-night, that a member who is exempted from the obligation to contribute to the political fund of the union shall not be excluded from any benefit of the union or placed in any respect, either directly or indirectly, under any disability or any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union by reason of his being so exempted, and the contribution to the political fund of the union shall not be made a condition for admission to the union. You get there a clear purview of the limitation of the powers of the trade union in respect of the control of its political fund and in respect of the conditions which shall regulate the admission and the membership of those who wish to become members of the trade union. If any member of a trade union alleges he is aggrieved —by what?—not by some misconduct or misfeasance on the part of any leader of 1440 the union, but by any breach of any rule made in pursuance of this Section, he may complain to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. What is that Registrar to do? He is to consider if such a breach has been committed, and, if he thinks it has, he may make such order for remedying that breach as he thinks just under the circumstances. No Court of Justice would for a moment entertain the suggestion that involved his power to give general damages against the trade union or to override the policy of the trade union. I hold that the words of this Amendment oust the jurisdiction of the Courts.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESThere may be a difference of opinion, and, if there be any difference of opinion, I would respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General that he might add at the end of the Amendment the words "and the decision of the Registrar shall be final and conclusive." That, at any rate, would be effective in preventing any intervention of the Courts. Let me point out that without this Amendment it is perfectly obvious nothing would be easier in the world than for any person who conceived himself to be aggrieved to go to the Courts.
Mr. C. EDWARDSThe hon. and learned Gentleman is surely not reading the Amendment aright. The man will still have the Amendment as an alternative if he wishes to exercise it.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESWith all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, whose knowledge on the subject no one will question, I respectfully demur and say that in my humble judgment the Courts would say, "A remedy has been provided you under the Statute, and you have no right to come here." I do not want to speak dogmatically, and I have no right to assert greater knowledge than my hon. and learned Friend, but that is my view. I would, however, add the words "final and conclusive" to remove any doubt. Supposing the Amendment was not accepted, what would be easier than for a man who thought himself aggrieved to go to the Courts and say, as indeed has happened in various cases, "I have been excluded from the benefit of the fund, and ask for an injunction? It is idle to suppose that the man who would vexatiously for the purpose of harassing the union go to this domestic tribunal would not equally go to the High Courts if this 1441 domestic tribunal did not exist. I have considered the matter carefully, and I do say, on the whole, that I think the Attorney-General has done perfectly right in the interests of the trade unions. These forebodings of my hon. and learned Friend are really unfounded, and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. J. Ward) need be under no apprehension that the powers of this tribunal would extend to giving damages against the union.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTI am, in common with other hon. Members, in a position to command the commiseration of the House. I am neither a lawyer nor a trade unionist, and I have received from Gentlemen speaking in both those capacities advice of a wholly contradictory character. I would remind the House this forms no portion of the Bill as introduced. We hear a good deal from hon. Gentlemen on these two benches about there being no difference between Liberal and Tory, but in this case there is no difference between Liberal, Tory, and Socialist; they are all going into the same Lobby, and they are going to add a provision to the Bill which the Government never thought necessary. It has been moved by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle), and has been seconded by the hon. Member for Newton (Viscount Wolmer), who is one of the strongest and most persistent opponents of the Bill. I will only venture to take one point with the greatest diffidence. I am told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Glamorganshire (Mr. C. Edwards), for whose legal knowledge and whose service to trade unions I have the greatest possible respect, that this is going to set up a new disability on trade unions and to make enforceable for the first time the payment of money benefit. The Attorney-General, of course, intervened and contradicted that point. I have got the Trade Union Act, 1871, here. I certainly cannot construe it like a lawyer, but to my humble, uninstructed mind these words seem perfectly clear:—
"Nothing in this Act shall enable any Court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of any of the following agreements."
And then in Sub-section (3):—
"Any agreement for the application of the funds of a trade union to provide benefits to members."
1442 Those words appear perfectly clear. The Attorney-General then proceeded to say, "Oh, yes, but the Courts would consider it unjust, and would manage to get round the law." That was the effect of his statement—that some means will be devised for the Courts to get round Trade Union Acts. That is precisely what hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches are always complaining about. They say the Court is always doing an injustice. In my humble opinion, and judging the matter on the spur of the moment, trade unions ought to be deeply grateful to the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) for the courageous stand he has made; to the hon. Member for East Glamorgan (Mr. Edwards) for the service he has once again rendered trade unionism. He is perfectly well entitled to say that he was largely instrumental in tightening up the Trades Disputes Bill, 1906, and now he has rendered further service to the industrial side of trade unionism, a side incomparably more important than the merely political side. I shall, at any rate, unhesitatingly vote with him in the Lobby.
§ Mr. A. HENDERSONA good deal has been made in this Debate of the fact that the Amendment was seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Newton, and that it has been opposed by the Member for Ince. I want to make the matter perfectly clear. If the Amendment had not been seconded by the Member for Newton, it could and would, I think, have been seconded by almost any other Member of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) did not put this Amendment down in his own name. He put it down on behalf of the party, and the party is going to stand by it. I have listened attentively to the statement made by the Member for Glamorgan, and we know the valuable work he has done on behalf of trade unionism, but I feel that, on this occasion, the advice he has offered to the Labour party is such that it would be unwise for UB to follow it. If there is one fear we have in connection with this Bill, it is that there are many legal pitfalls in it. We believe there are pitfalls in this particular Section, and, therefore, we are exceedingly anxious to do something to keep us away from the possibility of those costly injunctions which have been the cause of the depletion of many trade union funds during the last five or ten years. The position taken up in this Amendment was, it is quite true, taken up after 1443 consultation with the learned Attorney-General, but it was of our own initiative, because we, as a party, were exceedingly anxious to get some other tribunal than the ordinary legal costly tribunal to which discontented individual members have been taking us during the last few years. I sincerely hope that Members on all sides, when this goes to a Division, will support the hon. Member for Stockport in getting this Amendment added to the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI can only speak by leave of the House, but, as I have been asked a number of questions upon certain points, I may perhaps be allowed to deal briefly with them. I cannot help thinking there is an enormous amount of misapprehension and misunderstanding as to this Amendment. The hon. Member for East Glamorgan has rendered good service to trade unionism, but he seems to think in connection with what has happened here that the door has been opened wider, and that the result will be that all kinds of actions prohibited by trade union Statutes are now to be let loose or made available against trade unions. There never was a greater mistake. If it were the case I would agree that the Amendment ought not to be adopted. But this proposal is confined to cases of breaches of the rules under this Section. There is a statutory right put upon trade unions to carry out certain obligations and to make rules to secure that a man shall not be deprived of his benefits in consequence of refusing to contribute to a political fund. I propose to deal with two questions, one of law and the other of fact. With regard to the former no man is justified in asserting to the members of the Labour party that there is no danger whatever of actions being brought in the Law Courts to enforce these rules in the event of breach. I do not think any lawyer will venture to assert that. I say with the authority of my position and with a considerable amount of experience both in trade union litigation and in the Law Courts in other matters, although I do not think the j Courts would strain to get round the law, I do say that when a Court has made an order either against a trade union or against any other association or individuals, it will do its best as it ought to, to see that the order is enforced if the Court says the trade union had no right to expel a man and that it was a breach of the rules and that he ought to be reinstated, then if, in consequence of that 1444 order, the union does reinstate the man, but subsequently refuses to pay the benefit, then I say that the Court, by way of seeing that its order is not treated with contempt, would do what it ought to do. But I do not believe that any executive of a trade union would deliberately sit down and thus try to defeat an order of the High Court. Neither do I believe there is anything like danger of an enormous number of actions. Trade unions are not likely to do these things. Let me remind hon. Members that if a trade unionist has a grievance before he goes to the Registrar he has the right to put his case before his fellow trade unionists, and it is only when he has exercised that proper legitimate domestic right of appealing to his own court that he proceeds, if he still feels he has a grievance, not to the Courts of Law, but to the Registrar, who understands all these matters and who will decide the point in dispute. When a Registrar has decided I have no doubt the trade union will give effect to his decision. All that happens under this order is that you get some means of enforcing an order in case the trade union or the individuals concerned refuse to carry it out. It does not mean an action. It only means that the order shall not be mere waste paper, which it would' be if the Registrar had no means of enforcing his decision. There is not the slightest fear of any claim for damages such as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). That would indeed be a very dangerous power to grant to any man. All that happens here is that a man who says that he has been deprived of a benefit, say, of 15s. or 30s., in consequence of some action on the part of his executive, goes before the Registrar, who says, "I think he is right." In that case the money would be paid to the man and there would be an end to the whole matter.
§ Mr. WALSHA person who is aggrieved and believes himself entitled to the 30s. will have lost time and incurred expenses in preparing his case. Would it I not be within the competence of the Registrar under these words to make such an order as he thinks just under the circumstances, and add the whole of the accruing costs to the first claim?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI quite understand. The Registrar will be entitled to say, "This 30s. must be paid, and it has cost 5s. or 7s. 6d. to put your case before me," and you are paid your 7s. 6d. and it 1445 is done with. May I ask my hon. Friend, who has attended a good many meetings as delegate, or other functions as a member of a trade union, whether he was not quite properly paid his expenses?
§ Mr. S. WALSHLet me make the matter quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman used the expression, "I think you are entitled to 30a. and that is what will be paid." I would point out that a good many 30s. could accrue upon the first one. The cost of coming to London from the provinces cannot be limited to 5s. There are a day's wages and other expenses that might very well involve going beyond the limit of 5s., so that it is not quite so easy a matter as the right hon. Gentleman states.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf my hon. Friend takes that view he must put against it the other side. Let me put the other side. I will take a case with which I am familiar, and with which everybody in the House, or, at least, my hon. Friend is familiar. Take Houghton's case. He was a member of a trade union, and he was employed, that is the right word, to bring an action against the trade union, which resulted in many thousands of pounds expense, an action which ultimately culminated in the House of Lords, and which, as I know, and as my hon. Friend knows, resulted in another case which also went to the House of Lords. It is infinitely better, if there is such a dispute, that the Registrar should decide such a point as can arise under this Clause than that he should have to bring a law action.
§ Mr. S. WALSHThis is a very serious matter. Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman himself was of the opinion in Grand Committee that such a thing could not arise, will he explain how it is he now uses the expression "as can arise"?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI regret that my hon. Friend was not here when I made my first speech to the House. He would have heard me explain all the circumstances. If he asks me that question I will explain again. This Amendment was on the Paper in the name of the hon Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson), and three other Members, to be discussed in Committee. Before the matter came up in Committee, I was asked a question—there is no necessity for any secrecy about it—by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). He asked me, as we were going into the 1446 Committee, whether I was quite clear that an action could not be brought to recover benefits. I said, "Oh, no, there is no fear of that." In consequence of that, these Amendments were dropped. What other circumstances occurred I do not know. Subsequently, in further discussion, it was pointed out to me that an action for restraining a union from expelling a member could undoubtedly be brought in the High Court, and if a union refused to pay benefits, after reinstatement, no doubt the Court could find some means for enforcing payment, although there is no precedent for it. If the hon. Member thought that in no circumstances an action could be brought under Clause 3 (c), he was mistaken. I never intended to say that, although I did say, and say now, that an action brought directly to enforce an agreement to pay benefits cannot be brought. That is not the same thing we have been discussing. Hon. Members said if that is the case they ought to be protected against injunctions of that kind and litigation of that character. That is the object of the Amendment, and they have moved the Amendment for that purpose. I assented to it, as I believe it carries out my purpose, and is really in the interests of trade unions and will put an end to all this kind of litigation.
Mr. C. EDWARDSDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if the Amendment is carried an aggrieved member will be prohibited from bringing an action for restoration to membership by means of an injunction?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think there is no doubt about it. The only jurisdiction that is given to the Registrar is with regard to a breach of Clause 3 as it now stands. The remedy will be given in the Statute in that Section, and if that is the case there is no doubt that the remedy which is given exhausts the remedies for any breach under that Section. Do net let us have a discussion whether or not it is so or will be so. I think it will be very useful to take the words we find in the Friendly Societies Act and adopt them. When the proper time comes, I suggest that my hon. Friend should move, or that someone should move, after the words in the Amendment "any such order," to insert the words "of the Registrar shall be' binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal and shall not be removable into a Court of Law or restrainable by 1447 injunction." I think that will do away with a good deal of my hon. and learned Friend's objection.
§ Mr. J. WARDThat meets my point.
§ Mr. S. WALSHAnd it meets mine very largely.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI see that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) has now deserted the Labour party. I do not know whether he has become a convert to Liberalism, but I am quite sure he would be welcome. I think that some of my hon. Friends near me are rather playing not quite the game by the trade union movement in saying what they have said. What are the facts? In the whole course of my experience in dealing with trade unions I have never known a case in which the union has not given a man the benefits to which he is entitled. This Amendment only applies to men who form a small minority who dissent from paying the political contribution. I do not care what past legislation has been, what I do say is that if there was in any union men so tyrannical as to take a man's subscriptions and at the same time deprive him of the benefits to which he is legally entitled, in the name of common justice that man, whether a trade unionist or not, should have the right to see that justice is given to him. Therefore I think the Labour party are perfectly wise in accepting this Amendment because, although such cases have not come within my experience, I believe it is possible that some cases might occur. Instead of spending thousands and thousands of pounds out of their funds they have, under this Amendment, a ready means of obtaining justice at a minimum of cost. The hon. Member (Mr. Walsh) says what about the expenses that the member who is complaining will be put to if he has to enforce a claim against the union. I know cases where men have found money themselves to fight their unions, not in the High Court, but in a local Court. It is a common occurrence with men who dispute among themselves. Some people like litigation. But be that as it may, this is a reasonable Amendment and I can only say, as one who has always supported what I believe to be the legitimate aspirations of trade unions, the Amendment is wise in itself and is to the benefit of trade unions. It saves expense, it will do justice to everyone, and as to causing this great calamity which my hon. Friend speaks of it is a fear which has no reality, 1448 though no doubt it is a good stick to beat the Labour party with. Sometimes we want a stick on these benches to beat the Labour party.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe hon. Member has spoken with his usual impartiality on this question. I want to show the effect of the discussion we have had upon this Amendment. At the beginning of the Debate the object was quite different from that which is now being presented to the House. We first heard of this Amendment in the discussion of the former Amendment, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) said he would favourably consider the former Amendment if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Wardle) were adopted. He said by the Amendment we are now discussing protection would be granted to dissenting members of trade unions. Apparently the attitude of the Unionist party at that time was that there was no safeguard for dissenting members, and it was on that footing that the Noble Lord seconded, the Amendment. He held that, apart from the introduction of this Amendment, there would be no protection for the conscientious objector who dissented from the majority who are in favour of political action. Now we find that the situation is altogether reversed, and that, apart from this Amendment, there was protection for the conscientious objector, and that every conscientious objector who felt himself aggrieved would have his ordinary remedy in the Law Courts. Now apparently the Unionist party, leaving their usual position of preserving the jurisdiction of the Law Courts, are going to put into the hands of an administrative officer the power of deciding what are essentially judicial questions, and are thereby going to be guilty of an inconsistency which is quite at variance with their usual attitude in this matter. It is now clear that the Unionist party are in this instance in favour of ousting the jurisdiction of the Law Courts is favour of an administrative officer, and we welcome this change of attitude on their part. I think, however, it has been a valuable discussion, for which we are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Clement Edwards), and it has made clear that instead of being an alternative remedy which is granted by this Amendment, henceforth it will be the sole remedy which is open to the dissenting member, and that the decision of the Registrar will be final and binding, and as the jurisdiction of the Law Courts is 1449 ousted I think my hon. and learned Friend would do well to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move in the proposed Amendment, after the word "order" ["and any such order on being recorded in the County Court"], to insert the words "of the Registrar shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal, and shall not be removable into a Court of Law or rostrainable by injunction and."
§ 10.P.M.
Mr. C. EDWARDSI gathered that the Attorney-General was doing something to make it perfectly clear that the alternative method of re-dress, an injunction to the Law Courts, would be shut out. These words, of course, would not do that. The decision of the Registrar is to be final, and you cannot move in any other Court with regard to that decision. The point I raised is that, in the first place, there are the two alternative remedies. Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept words stating that this shall be the sole remedy for the aggrieved member? I do not think there can be the slightest doubt that if you have at the present moment a right to go into a Law Court for an injunction to restore to membership, and you use no words prohibiting that right, but you use words which suggest another method, you merely make these two methods of obtaining redress alternative. Will the right hon. hon. Gentleman be prepared to accept words which will make it perfectly clear that an aggrieved member has no right to go into the High Court for an injunction in connection with this Clause? I suggest some such words as these: "Provided that the method of redress set forth here shall be the only method of redress open to an aggrieved member."
§ Mr. JOHN WARDSo far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General. It meets our case absolutely, especially after the statement he made that this, being the redress now in the Clause itself, would be construed by any Court as being the only redress open to a member. Under these circumstances I believe our interest is entirely safeguarded.
§ Mr. S. WALSHWhen I raised the objection that trade unionists had a strong desire to keep out of the Law Courts I felt, 1450 I think rightly, that there was a danger of a new court being created in addition to the present one. But the right hon Gentleman has given us the assurance that this shall be for all intents and purposes the only remedy that an aggrieved member can press under this Section. For any sense of grievance he may feel under the Clause this will be the proper remedy and that undoubtedly removes a great deal of the fear which, rightly or wrongly, I felt. I therefore withdraw my objection to the Amendment.
§ Amendmen to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Proposed words, as amended, inserted in the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, at end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words:—
"A resolution under this Section approving political objects as an object of the union shall take effect as if it were a rule of the union and may be rescinded in the same manner and subject to the same provisions as such a rule."
This is an Amendment to give effect to a promise I made in Committee that I would consider what was best to be done in order to carry out certain views of the trade unionists. I think this is the best way of protecting trade unionists.
§ Viscount WOLMERI think this Amendment entirely meets the point raised on the Committee stage, and I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for moving it.
§ Mr. BRACEI beg to move to insert the following words at the end of Subsection (2):—
"(3) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions and not the unions; but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component union from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination."
1451 This is rather an unimportant matter so far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, but in the administration of the Bill it would be very helpful to such organisation as that with which I am connected. The short point of the Amendment is that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain or any similar organisation shall be treated as one unit for balloting purposes under this Act. At present the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is the national organisation for miners, representing all the miners from one end of Scotland to the other end of Wales. Our political scheme is a national scheme upon all matters of a national character. The Miners' Federation, which is an organisation of organisations, is the dominating unit for all these national purposes. If this Amendment is not accepted by the House, it will mean that the constituent unions of the federation will have to take their own separate ballots, and as an organisation we should be in a state of chaos, disorganisation, and confusion. We are simply asking that for the purposes of this Bill the national organisation shall be treated as one unit.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThe hon. Member who proposed the Amendment said that this is a short point. It is a short point as he expresses it, but it is a very substantial point. It means that the provisions of the Bill will apply, not merely to separate trade unions, but will be extended to the political energies of trade unions in an aggregate form. In other words, it is frankly a Syndicalist Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us examine it. You have got your trade union movement to-day in three forms. You have, first of all, the problem of the individual union; secondly you have the national union of unions within a particular country; and thirdly, you have the world problem of international trade unionism. What does this Amendment mean? It means that not only may a particular trade union address itself to political objects for the purposes of that union, but that the union, being a unit in a larger aggregation of unions, may make its members, who are not exempt, act with the aggregate of unions. For my part I doubt if there is in the country at present a single union which would be within the language used in the Amendment.
§ Mr. BRACEAs a matter of fact, the Miners' Federation of Great Britain is so constituted, and does exactly the work which we are asking to be allowed to do within the terms of the Amendment.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGSupposing a union is in a federation or group of unions, the members of the individual union would have to express their mind not only with respect to the objects of the individual union, but of the federation of unions. But you also get in the modern developments of trade unions combinations of trade unions which are representative of different kinds of unions. That is a point which certainly must be kept in mind, having regard to the fact that, in ascertaining the mind of your individual union, you have also to ascertain the mind of the federation of unions, if it is in the federation. What advantage do you get in ascertaining the views of the aggregate of unions, instead of the individual opinions held by the members of one union? If this Amendment is accepted, I see that in a veiled way a very dangerous proposal will be grafted on this Bill. The hon. Member was well advised to call it a short point. It seems to me it has all the elements of a dangerous point which ought not to be determined off-hand or lightly in a few moments of Parliamentary time at the end of a long discussion. It is an Amendment which was never discussed in Committee at all. It is introduced now at the fag-end of the Report stage, without a word of discussion, and I-frankly tell the House that it would be very ill-advised, having regard to the nature of its language, to allow it to be grafted upon the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think a great deal of the fear of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the result of this Amendment is because we have not had an opportunity of discussing it in Committee, and I dare say he may not have noticed it on the Paper before. I do not say that it is of no importance, but I do say that it carries out the whole principle of the Bill. What the hon. and learned Member did not bear in mind is that there are federations, associations, or combinations which are in themselves trade unions, and which have as their component members other trade unions, so that, if the hon. and learned Member follows me, assuming you have a federation of trade unions, which is a trade union and which consists of 1453 twelve trade unions—those are the members of the union—
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIf the federation of trade unions is a trade union itself it is already covered by the language of the Bill.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI am not satisfied that it is. I think that my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that it is intended to be covered. Suppose in the federation to which I have referred, all twelve trade unions have ballotted for political objects and three of them declare against and nine for, observe that in that trade union you have no opportunity whatever of allowing the man who wants to pay, the member of the trade union which has declared by a majority against payment, to pay through his trade union machinery to the federation. If you have a number of individuals, and some are for and some are against claiming exemption the trade union cannot split itself into those who are willing to pay and those who are not willing to pay unless we have a Clause of this kind. That is why it is introduced and we have taken care to say, that although nothing shall prevent the machinery of the union being used for the collection of money to pay to the federation, at the same time it always remains for the executive to determine whether it will or will not. It is necessary to do this in order to legalise what was intended in the first Clauses of the Bill which we have passed, certainly under Clause 3, and in order to give the right to any man to pay if he wants to pay through the trade union.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI did not follow the Amendment as drafted, and I would ask the learned Attorney-General to consider the exact words in which it is proposed. The Amendment says, "as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions." I do not follow what that means. If the members of the federation were the individual members of' the component unions, then you would have to take a ballot of the whole of the members of the component union. The result would be that if you want the federation to go in for political objects, you would, first of all, have your ballot of the individual members of the component union, and, having got that, you would then have to deal with individual members of the component union. I thought that was what you did not want.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLIt seems to me that these words will not carry that out, because they have to apply as if the members of that union—that is the federation in the case we have taken—were all individual members of the component unions. If the members of the federation were individual members of the component unions you would have to take a second ballot of the members of the compone unions for the purposes of the federation. I thought the Attorney-General agreed with me, but the hon. Member who moved the Amendment docs not agree with me; that is what he wants to avoid. I do not know which it is. The Attorney-General says the true construction is that which the hon. Member wishes to avoid.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIn the federation the question is whether the federation should engage in political activity. You have to take a ballot of the federation. In the ordinary course you have to take a ballot of twelve component unions which are members of the federation. By this Clause, instead of doing that, you take a ballot of the individual members who form the component unions to decide whether or not they are to engage in political activity. My hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that when you have done that and got a majority for the federation, it does not follow that the individual unions can themselves, apart from the federation, engage in political activity without another ballot.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI think that is not what the hon. Member intends.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLLet me clearly understand it. May I take, first of all, the federation? Suppose you have twelve unions in the federation, and that the federation is a union within the meaning of the Act, and that the twelve unions, each of them separately, has a ballot of its members for the purpose of determining whether or not each union shall go in for political activity, and suppose that nine say "Yes" and three "No," then the next question is, Can the federation go in for political activity? You have then to have a second ballot of the individual members of the twelve component unions, and then you have to determine on that ballot whether the federation can go in for political activity. Let me call 1455 the attention of the Attorney-General to the words—
"The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the members of that union were the individual members of the component unions."
That is as if the members of the federation were individual members of the component union. You would then have to have a ballot of the individual members of the component union in order to determine whether the federation could go in for political activity or not.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is what I say.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLApply it to this case. You have, first of all, a ballot taken of the twelve unions separately and it does not matter what the result, you then want to consider whether the federation is to go in for political activity, and then you have to have a second ballot of the individual members of the component unions, because the federation is to be treated for this purpose as if it were not a federation of component unions, but as if the members of the federation were the individual members of the component unions. There is no doubt you would have to have a second ballot. It seems to me that ought to be put right. It is not clear as the Amendment stands. What I have suggested is I understand what hon. Members opposite wish to avoid. I am quite sure as the Amendment stands at present the result will be that which I have suggested. I quite agree that is not the result desired.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe point I think will be met by inserting the words, and I suggest we take it "as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union and not the unions."
§ Mr. BARNESI think that would more accurately express what we desire, and I think we shall accept those words in preference to the words on the Paper. Let me try and explain to the hon. and learned Gentleman what we do mean. We want only one vote to be taken and on that vote being taken over the whole federation, or combination, or association, we want all the printing and all the necessary arrangements for that vote being 1456 taken, done at one centre, and circulated throughout the whole dozen or whatever number there may be of trade unions; so that for the purpose of carrying on this political work the whole federation is taken as the union and not any one of the component unions. That is, in brief, what we want. When the vote has been taken we want further that the majority of the aggregate vote taken over the whole twelve unions should determine the political action of the whole of the unions, or of any one of them. That is to say, in the event of three of the unions having decided, if their votes were taken separately, against political action, those unions shall be determined in their action not by the sectional vote, but by the vote taken over the whole federation. That is what we are aiming at. I admit that the words in the Amendment are rather awkward; those suggested by the Attorney-General are an improvement, and I should wish to accept them.
§ Viscount WOLMERI think that hon. Members opposite, who were rather indignant at his intervention, ought to be exceedingly grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for pointing out the flaw in the drafting of the Amendment. I am not a lawyer, and we laymen have to accept what the lawyers tell us as to the effect of these words. [HON. MEMBKIIS: "NO."] I for one profoundly sympathise with the object the hon. Member has in moving the Amendment. As I have said previously, provided the money is contributed willingly, it ought certainly to be spent according to the desire of the trade unions, and for either House to interfere with the spending of such money would be an unjustifiable interference. If hon. Members opposite think that they can more efficiently manage their political busienss by means of federation, this House ought not to stand in their way.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI am perfectly clear that the Amendment, even as amended by the Attorney-General, will not carry out the views of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, and those are the views I want to see carried out.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGMay I, by permission of the House, add another word? There is a danger if you leave the words as they are. Hon. Members desire that a federation of unions should be treated as a unit. It ought, then, to be made clear that the individual unions must not, for this purpose, be treated as units; other- 1457 wise you may have an unfair alternative. Suppose there are a dozen unions federated, and that seven of them, with a majority in the aggregate, are in favour of political action, while five are against. It would be manifestly to the advantage of the federated unions that the aggregate vote should be taken. But suppose the case was the other way, and that the larger number of unions were against. It ought not to be possible to take it both ways. It ought not to be left to chance or expediency either to treat the federated unions as the unit or to treat the component unions as units. The component unions should be eliminated as units for this purpose, or you would make it possible for the question to be decided either by the aggregate of the federation, or by simply taking individual unions which were favourable, while the aggregate vote was hostile. If the Attorney-General desires to be fair he should add some such words as, "and the component unions shall not be deemed to be unions for the purposes of this provision." I think it ought to be made perfectly clear, otherwise you may get the alternative condition of the federated unions, as a whole, getting a majority in favour of political action, or taking singly the component unions, as a whole, the majority may not be in favour of political action.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMThis, I think, is a very important point, and I think it ought to be quite clearly settled.
§ Mr. PETOMay I further point out to the Attorney-General that if you have both the combination or the component unions as an alternative—and in every speech it has been assumed that the twelve unions are numerically equal—it is perfectly possible that a minority of the unions might be a majority of the total unions. In that case you would have hopeless confusion. From that point of view, unless we adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Norman Craig), we shall have confusion in a matter that can be perfectly easily expressed so as to avoid complication, the unions also being taken into consideration.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAs I read this Amendment, the effect of it is that if the federation wishes to engage in political activity there will have to be taken a ballot of the unions that form the federation, and all the individual members of the unions will vote as to whether or not 1458 the federation shall so engage: that is what is desired. That undoubtedly this Clause will do. The other point raised is that the vote does not entitle the individual unions—taking the figure 12— does not entitle each of those unions, without anything further, to engage in political activities—that is to say, having political objects as part of their constitution, apart altogether from the federation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In my view it does not—
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThat is exactly what is unfair.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The whole point of doing it in this way is that we should not bind individual unions as regards their own affairs on political objects. Take five component unions who do not wish to be bound. The executive of those unions may refuse to use the political machinery for collecting the levy and nothing you could do would compel them to do it.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGThe point I want an answer on is this. As I read the Amendment, unless it is altered, it produces this result, that a trade federation in the aggregate aims first of all at taking a majority in favour of political purposes from the aggregate of the union. If it gets a majority of the aggregate then the whole of the unions are devoted to political purposes. If it cannot do that, as I understand it, then what it does is to disregard the federal idea altogether and to take the individual unions then voting, although they are in a minority of the aggregate, and to impose political purposes on them.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMI want an answer to my question. Will the Attorney-General kindly give me an answer? The question is a simple one. What I want to know is this. In an aggregate of twelve unions, if seven vote in favour of federation and five against it is quite clear the majority would rule; but if the majority is the other way about, can the five unions then as an entity contribute towards political purposes? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] If they cannot they ought to be entitled to. Take, for example, the Miners' Federation. They have always been out-voted by other unions until now. It may be they would say they wanted to contribute to political purposes. I say after they have joined 1459 the federation they ought to be entitled to do as they like with their money. Have they that right, or not under the Clause? The Attorney-General shakes his head, but I want an answer, "Yes" or "No."
§ Mr. H. TERRELLThis matter, if not properly settled, will go to the Law Courts. I suppose the object of the Labour party is not to invite the intervention of the Law Courts. The matter is very complicated, and in order to give more time for its consideration I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGI rise to second the Motion. This is a very difficult point; it was not mentioned on the Second Beading or in the Committee. It now comes up on Report stage, and presents a practical difficulty. We want to make the point quite clear, and I think the matter would be better solved by adjourning it at the moment, and it can be dealt with in two or three minutes when the Debate is again resumed.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)We all realise that there is a single desire to express what we want in proper terms, and I do not think we are in a position which requires an adjournment. I cannot discuss the merits of the Amendment on this Motion, but I may say that you may have an individual union which from one point of view is a member of a federation, and from another point of view has an existence of its own, and unless I am misinformed you may have an individual union which as an individual union takes an interest in local work. I do not think anybody who is prepared to accept the principle of this Bill will deny that such an individual union ought to be entitled to exercise the power within its own area for its own purposes. That is not what this Clause is aimed at. If we keep these two separate things in mind we shall get words quite apt, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion. I think it is desirable while the House has this question thoroughly in its mind to dispose of the matter.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLI am quite willing to withdraw my Motion if it is the wish of the House. I ask leave to withdraw.
§ Motion for Adjournment by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to omit the words "the members of that union were."
1460§ Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment—After the word "unions" ["as if the individual members of the component unions"], insert the words "were the members of that union"—put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI will now read the Amendment as amended:—
(3) The provisions of this Act as to the application of the funds of a union for political purposes shall apply to a union which is in whole or in part an association or combination of other unions as if the individual members of the component unions were the members of that union, and not the unions, but nothing in this Act shall prevent any such component union from collecting from any of their members who are not exempt on behalf of the association or combination any contributions to the political fund of the association or combination.
§ Mr. H. TERRELLMay I point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General asked us to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate on the ground that he and the Attorney-General were trying to find words which "would meet the difficulty suggested from this side, a suggestion directed to improve the practical working of the Bill? We withdrew the Motion, relying upon the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Are we to understand now that the Motion has been withdrawn, that the two Law Officers are going to proceed and allow this Amendment to be put without further observation or suggestion from them as to the words that would meet the difficulty?
§ Sir J. SIMONLet me just state as clearly as I can what I understand to be the object at which we are aiming, because I submit the Amendment in the form in which it has now been put from the Chair really meets the difficulty. You have got to bear in mind two things. A workman may, on the one hand, be a member of an individual union and may, as a member of that individual union, have responsibilities to it, and his individual union may have certain interests which may include political and municipal interests as well as what are ordinarily called trade union interests. On the other hand, because he is a member of that individual union, and because that individual union in its turn is a member of a great federation, he has an interest in the federation. What I understand the Amendment, 1461 as it is now drafted and phrased, to do is this: It leaves the position of the workman, so far as regards his membership of the individual union, under the general terms of the Bill; it does not affect it in the least. On the other hand, so far as the federation is concerned—say, the Miners' Federation, which consists of many trade unions—it says, if you want to answer "Aye" or "No" "may the Miners' Federation engage in political action?" it must be determined by a majority of the votes taken from all the workmen who are directly or indirectly members of the federation. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman differs from what I am now saying, though he may possibly dispute whether it is a wise provision.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGYou are using your individual units to try to get a majority which binds the whole federation, even the minority, and then you are taking by the latter words of this Amendment liberty to bind individual units in favour of political action, though as regards the federation as a whole they are in a minority. You are using people to bind the whole federation of unions if you can, and, if you cannot bind the whole federation of unions, you are taking the individual component unions and binding them. Manifestly, to use a vulgarism, that is getting it both ways.
§ Sir J. SIMONI do not want there to be any misunderstanding as to what is in the opinion of us all the effect of these words. The effect I suggest is this. Let me suppose you have got a federation which consists of twelve individual unions, A, B, C, and so on. The question whether or not that federation and the funds of that federation, may engage in political action is to be determined by a majority of the votes of all the workmen who belong to the federation, whatever be the particular trade union, A, B, C, or D, to which they individually belong. I do not see why the answer to that question should be conclusive one way or the other as to the question whether the workmen who belong to trade union A should, in respect of trade union A, find themselves as belonging to a trade union A which does or does not engage in political action. Supposing your federation is the Miners' Federation, and supposing it consists of trade unions, one of which is located in Wales,—another located in Yorkshire, and still another in Scotland, I can quite imagine 1462 that the result of the ballot will be there will be no majority in the whole federation for political action, and therefore there will be no right in the Miners' Federation to use the funds of the federation for political purposes. But I cannot see why that should deprive the miners in Yorkshire—if they have a majority in favour of so doing in the Yorkshire Union—of the power of applying the funds of that union to help to elect a man to the town council—say of Bradford.
§ Mr. HILLSIt is not merely for municipalities. This is an important point—less important to me than to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is looking at it purely from the point of view of the component union that is in favour of political purposes. Will he look at it from the point of view of the component union which is not? If the component union is in favour and the aggregate of unions is not in favour, whatever happens, the component union has freedom to work politically. But if the component union is net in favour of political action, while the aggregate of unions are, the component union is swamped by the federation, and has political purposes imposed on it.
§ Sir J. SIMONThe hon. and learned Gentleman from one point of view may be quite right in his diagnosis, but ho forgets that you must distinguish between those contributions which are made for the purposes of the federation and those which are local and which are made for the purposes of the individual union. It is not true that these two things are the same. If you are going to accept the principle of this Bill I cannot for the life of me see why if you get a majority of the workmen in individual unions to say that they want to have a political fund they should not be allowed to do so, even although the other unions in the federation take a different view with regard to political action. What is happening is that you are saying that so far as local unions are concerned political action shall depend on whether there are a majority of the members in favour of it; but that has nothing to do with the question whether the whole federaion has the right to exercise its powers. That has to be determined by the views of the majority of the members in the federation itself. We are agreed as to the effect of the Clause, and I submit that this is a perfectly fair and logical way of carrying out its objects.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Viscount WOLMERI hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Norman Craig) will not press this to a Division, because when he says this Amendment is letting the unions have it both ways, he is ignoring the fact that if the safeguards for the minority are efficient the minorities are also having it both ways, too. That is the crux of the whole situation. It is because I believe that the Labour party have now agreed to an Amendment which does give the minority a safeguard, and lets them appeal to a tribunal, that I think the safeguards in the Bill are worth having. Therefore it is right to let the unions have it both ways if they like, because if the minority can enforce these safeguards in a Court of Law, which is practically what they can do, then the minority is having it both ways as well.