HC Deb 22 June 1927 vol 207 cc1873-7
Mr. OLIVER

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

Unlike the other two Clauses which have been disposed of, this Clause applies to legal as well as to illegal strikes, and, in consequence, makes it more necessary on the part of the Government to look with greater carefulness into the Clause in order to see quite clearly that they are doing nothing which will penalise the workmen unduly. As the first two Clauses deal with illegal strikes, it may be a very long time before we have an opportunity of testing them, but this Clause deals with legal strikes, and consequently it is of the greatest importance, in view of the fact that it may be tested very early, almost as soon as the Bill has left this House. We oppose this Clause because we believe the existing law adequate to meet all contingencies that have arisen in the past and are likely to arise in the future. On the 30th August of last year, the Home Secretary told us exactly what was the existing law in regard to picketing and the rights and duties of pickets. He said: If a person 'watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works or carries on business' it is a criminal offence to-day, and if a number of men persistently beset the house of a miner who desires to work, and watch his house from time to time, watching him going in and watching him going out, that is an offence under the law as it stands to-day. He also told us in the same speech: Under the old Act, any form of violence or intimidation is illegal. If a man uses violence, or intimidates a person who wants to work, or his wife or children, he is, under the Act of 1875, guilty of an offence. If he 'persistently follows such other person about from place to place' he is guilty; or if he hides his tools, and so on, he is guilty of an offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th August, 1926; col. 20, Vol. 199.] The right hon. Gentleman, in the same speech, after paying a great tribute to the miners for the peaceful way in which they conducted the dispute, said that booing was illegal. Consequently, the law as it stands to-day meets fairly fully the conditions which arise in trade disputes. Therefore, it comes very badly from hon. Members opposite to talk about their being opposed to intimidation, being opposed to booing, watching, besetting and mass picketing, when the Home Secretary as recently as last August made it quite clear that none of these things are legal under the existing law. Nevertheless, we have heard speeches, and no doubt we shall hear speeches to-day, trying to show why the country is opposed to intimidation, why men should not be followed, why they should not be threatened, just as if hon. Members opposite are the only people who are prepared to condemn that kind of conduct and that we on this side of the House are the only people who are prepared to condone that kind of conduct.

I hope that in discussing this Clause it will not be enough to talk about the right to intimidate. We do not want the right to intimidate. We disapprove of intimidation just as much as right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but this Clause goes further than consolidating the things that are already illegal. It practically makes picketing impossible. Those of us who have had some practical experience, in our early days, of conducting disputes, know exactly what this Clause would have meant had it been in operation in those days. Sub-section (2) says: The expression 'to intimidate' means to cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury to him or to any member of his family or of violence or damage to any person or property, and the expression 'injury' includes injury other than physical or material injury. The words which will make it difficult for picketing to proceed are the words cause in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of injury. … other than physical or material injury. Whilst these words are in the Clause it will be most difficult even for the most peace-loving individual to approach a man who is working during a dispute. If the words of the Clause were, "Words used which cause in the mind of the person, etc.," it would be clear. The Courts would have something to work on. The question would be, whether the words used were likely or calculated to cause in the mind of the man some reasonable apprehension of injury to himself. That provision is not included; it is not merely the words that are to be considered as causing intimidation but even demeanour or glances have been put into the Clause to show that the man picketed had reasonable apprehension of injury, other than material and physical.

That makes it extremely difficult for any man to know precisely where he stands as a picket. One might approach a man and tell him that he voted for the dispute, that his complaint was the cause of the dispute, that his agitation laid the foundation for the dispute. The more truthful such a statement may be the greater will be the offence of the picket, because more occasion will the man have to fear injury to himself, other than material and physical, when the dispute is over. The more honest a man may be as a picket, the more sincere he may be, the more enthusiastic he may be in asking a man stop work the greater his risk, and on the other hand the greater the blackguard may be at work, the greater the difficulty will be, and the more likely are we to bring to the Courts honest, sincere men, while, on the other hand, we protect some of the biggest scoundrels. For that reason, I hope the Government will consider the nature of the persons who are being picketed and the nature of the persons picketing.

4.0 p.m.

I have met many men who have objected and do object to trade unionism. I can understand the man who says, "I do not believe in trade unions, I do not think they are in the best interests of the country, and certainly not in the best interests of the working classes." That man's position is understandable, and to that extent it is right to concede to him the right to his opinion, just as we expect our opinions to be respected. But I have yet to meet the man, however much he opposes trade unionism, who refuses to accept benefits which trade unions have obtained for him. I have never heard one who said, "I do not want to work the 47 hours or 48 hours the unions have got for me, nor do I desire to receive the same pay which the trade unions have got whether by disputes or negotiations." That position is understandable, but in a trade dispute you have men who are fighting for their lives. Their very bread-and-butter is at stake, and, in consequence, the man who goes to work is a man who is helping to defeat them. That being the position, it is most difficult, unless you lay it down in the clearest possible terms what the law is or will be when one man approaches another. A man may be working, and so doing his best to defeat his fellow-workmen, yet if his fellow-workmen win, he will be entitled to the proceeds of their victory, and if he remains in work and the workmen lose, the very fact that he has been at work is likely to stand him in good stead, in so far that the employer will give him a few shillings a week more in consequence of his conduct during the dispute. When that position obtains, you can understand the mentality of the parties, if you could only visualise that point of view, and realise that the men who are fighting are fighting for something in which that man will participate if they are successful, I think we ought to draw the line as clearly and fairly as we can, and not leave it in this vague way for a man to say, "I apprehend injury other than that of a material or physical kind."

I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is honest, because we are not legislating to protect ordinary people in this Bill. Whether it be a trade union or any other body, when a majority decision has been taken, whether it be in our clubs, professions or trades, the men who oppose the majority when they have had a right to try to influence that majority, are not looked upon with favour. This Bill gives a favoured position to that type of person. For that reason, I do not think it is fair, because none of these people are men of admirable character. If they were, we could understand the position, but they are not the best type of men. They are not the men who have made the institutions of which we so often boast in this country. The men whom this Bill designs to hit are some of the finest of our people, men who have worked to bring down the unlimited hours of 20 and 30 years ago to something like hours of reasonable proportion, men who have agitated to bring about industrial betterment which has preceded industrial legislation as we understand it in this country, men who have tried to bring some order into the industrial lives of our people, where hitherto chaos reigned. Those are the men whom this Bill will hit, and hit severely, unless something be done, and this particular objectionable Clause be deleted. On the 30th August last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary very rightly said that the miners' dispute was the quietest trade dispute this country had ever witnessed. Furthermore, we had the finest demonstration and manifestation of the peaceful character of the men and women of this country. Despite that fact, I am not exaggerating when I say that there must be thousands of men who stopped work on the 1st May last year, miners in particular, who have never returned to industry since.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)

Why?

Mr. OLIVER

It is not because they have been intimated by their fellowmen. It is because they are intimidated to-day by their employers and kept out of a job, and will be kept out of a job as long as the employers can do so. They have been victimised, and we know it. I was rather amazed to read in a publication of the Tory party called "The Democrat," published by Odhams Press, Limited, Long Acre, London. In it there is an article