Mr. SilvermanThe hon. and gallant Gentleman says "Quite wrong ", and I understand from that that he does not agree with me. He is entitled to have his view, and his view may be the right one. I am attempting to give the Committee the view I have formed with some care, and which I believe to be true. I do not believe that in 1927, if the only thing the Government of the day wanted to do about the trade union law was to enact Subsection (4) of Section 3, there 854 would have been any Act at all, and I defy anybody, reasonably or seriously, to contradict that. The fact of the matter is that what Members opposite are now saying would have justified an Act of itself, was introduced in a minor Subsection to not the most important Section in the Act, and was done in a situation when, as has been admitted by the mover of the Amendment, the General Strike which led to the adoption of the 1927 Act had done nothing to justify that Subsection. That was said by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that the strikers in the General Strike had conducted themselves well and had not been guilty of intimidation of this kind. If in the General Strike there had not been intimidation of this kind, it is difficult to understand their case.
If ever there was a time when passion ran high, when emotions were stirred and when people felt deeply in an industrial dispute or a political dispute—however you looked at it: it had an industrial background and an industrial side—it was the General Strike. If those masses of people, feeling they had everything at stake, behaved themselves in that struggle in order not to give rise to criticism of this kind, there is very strong and influential evidence that in the strikes—there were not many—between 1913 and 1925 they would have behaved themselves with similar restraint.
§ Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Central)Do I understand that the burden of the argument of the hon. Member and of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is that because there have not been frequent instances of a wrong, therefore this Amendment has no value? Will the hon. Member argue analogously that because there have not been frequent instances of murders of Members of Parliament, murders of Members of Parliament should now be legalised?
Mr. SilvermanThe usual reason advanced for amending the law is that circumstances and facts have shown that the law without the Amendment was not strong enough for its purpose, and therefore I say that anyone who wants to change the law must discharge the onus which is upon him to show that the amendment of the law is necessary. I understand perfectly well that a great many Members on the opposite side 855 defend this Amendment on that ground, that they think the facts do show that an Amendment is necessary.
§ Mr. W. J. BrownIf it be that there is a dispute as to whether the number of cases is or is not so large as to make it desirable or undesirable to carry this Amendment, surely the evidence can be produced by the Home Office? We may be all genuine seekers after the truth but we have not the truth. The Home Office has. The hon. Member should be asking his right hon. Friends to say whether the facts are there.
Mr. SilvermanI do not think my hon. Friend is displaying his usual skill in defending his hon. Friends. I was endeavouring to deal with the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow Central (Colonel Hutchison). I will come to my hon. Friend later. The point was, did I think that this Amendment should not be added to the Bill unless it was shown that it was necessary, and I replied that I certainly thought that, and that those who support the Amendment think that the facts do support that and they would not be supporting the Amendment unless they did so. To those who say that it is established, I must point out that nobody has established it. Every request for an instance, just one solitary instance, has been refused: and it is admitted that in the General Strike, out of which the 1927 Act came, which of all others might have been expected to lead to bad temper and unrestrained activity, it was not necessary and not used there, and that there is strong evidence that it was not necessary.
I want now to deal with the principal argument of the hon. Member for Rugby. He says, "Granted that the 1927 Act ought to be abolished, let us use the Committee stage in order that, when the Bill is finally through, we shall have a suitable bit of trade union law established by this Parliament and unassailable." Of course, the Government could have done it that way. There were only two ways in which the purpose of this Bill could have been achieved. One was to have a brand new trade union law, repealing the whole thing. I am not sure that there ought not to be such a thing, but I wonder what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would 856 have said it the Government had done that?
§ Mr. W. J. BrownI would have welcomed it.
Mr. SilvermanYes, but the hon. Member for Rugby only counts one in a Division. I wonder what would have been said, since the principal argument used against this Bill in Second Reading was that we ought not to have devoted Parliamentary time to it at all, that it was a complete waste of time, that it showed a complete lack of any sense of proportion, that the Government showed that they did not want to deal with the urgent problems of the day, that they wanted a political stunt and active revenge. What would have been said if the Government had chosen the beginning of this year, with all the problems that were then to be dealt with, for a review by Parliament of the whole of the union legislation?
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)The hon. Member is getting very wide. Will he kindly Come back to the Amendment?
Mr. SilvermanI am dealing, Mr. Beaumont, with the specific argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite in specific terms. I restated it before I replied to it. I am saying that the. Government were perfectly right not to do that and that this Amendment ought not to be passed on that ground. The simple thing was to do what the Government did—restore the position as it was before an Act that ought never have been adopted was, in fact, adopted. If there is a case for a review of trade union legislation as a whole, let us have a commission, with proper evidence taken, with everybody represented on it who should be represented; let everybody give evidence who has evidence to give, and then let us consider whether there are any modifications necessary in trade union law. The very worst way to do it is to do it piecemeal on the basis of casual Amendments put in without much argument in their support in the course of an attempt to hold up Government business —[Interruption]—I will speak for two more minutes because I want the Committee to realise what would happen if we carried this Amendment. What is proposed with regard to Subsection (1) in the present Act would mean that Subsection 857 (1) of Section 3 of the 1927 Act would go, Subsection (2) would go, Subsection (3) would go, and out of the whole of Section 3, all that would be left would be these words:
Notwithstanding anything in any Act, it shall not be lawful for one or more persons, for the purpose of inducing any person to work or to abstain from working, to watch or beset a house or place where a person resides.‥ ‥That is to say, it would be unlawful even for a picket to be posted somewhere at the end of the street in order to see whether a particular person left his house on a particular morning to go to work, or not. That is the only thing that would be left, but it would go as wide as that, so that any kind of conduct of a dispute would become impossible; you would never know who was working or who was not. If you are to have such a review of the law as my hon. Friend requires, you will have to do it by a much better conceived plan, in a much more deliberate way, than in a casual Amendment of. this kind, which I hope the Committee will reject.
§ 4.45 P.m.
§ Lord Willoughby de Eresby (Rutland and Stamford)I hope the few words I shall say on this Amendment will not be counted as lack of sincerity, because it is an Amendment about which I feel very strongly. I would like to support the argument so clearly and, to my mind, convincingly put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in moving this Amendment. Subsection (4) of Section 3 of the 1927 Act, which we seek to retain, is an extremely modest and innocuous Subsection in spite of the passions which it has seemed to arouse during the last few minutes. Its sole purpose, in case hon. Members have lost the threads of the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend, is to try to protect the worker's home and family from being watched and beset by strike pickets. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said that this was not abused during the General Strike. I am not particularly interested in whether or not it was abused then. Fortunately, I am too young to feel any bitterness about the General Strike; in fact, my feeling is only one of gratitude towards the strikers because, owing to the strike, I went back a fortnight late to school as the trains were not running.
858 What I would like to know from the learned Attorney-General, or some hon. Member opposite, is why it is necessary that this power should be given to the trade unions. The object we seek to attain by this Amendment is one which should commend itself to all hon. Members and, more particularly, to married Members and those who are fortunate enough to have families of their own. Hon. Members who are in this happy state of matrimony, or still happier state of parenthood, will realise the undesirable nature of this practice of picketing the home.. I would also remind hon. Members that it is a practice which may well be carried out at a time when the husband is not even at home.
So as to consider this Amendment in its proper perspective we should all clear our minds of any political prejudice and divorce from our minds the harrowing picture which was painted for us by the Foreign Secretary during Second Reading of the millstone in the form of the 1927 Act which he has had to wear with such fortitude and courage, if not uncomplainingly, for the past 20 years. This Amendment will do nothing in the future, either to arrest the development, physical or political, of the Foreign Secretary, of the Minister of Labour—whom I see opposite—of the trade unions, or of anyone else. As hon. Members know, it makes no difference to the right of anyone to call a strike, whether it is an industrial, sympathetic, general, or any other form of strike. Nor does oit deduct one penny from any political funds of any parties in this country. It does none of these things which, as I have always understood, are the chief cause of resentment of hon. Members opposite against the 1927 Act, and the restoration of Subsection (4) really cannot be said to place any stigma upon any hon. Member.
As far as I can see, we are trying to decide this afternoon where we are to draw the line for the carrying out of the practice of picketing. One is fortified in one's contention and belief that the 1927 Act did draw it in the right place from the very fact that the Socialist Government of 1930 in their amending Act, I think of the same date, accepted this Subsection in its entirety, and did not at that time seek to alter one word of it. Far be it from me to question the inscrutability of the Socialist mind, but one 859 might well ask oneself, when the home was excluded at that date, why this so-called progressive Socialist Government should now wish to resuscitate this distasteful practice of picketing the home. Why should the present Government wish to go back to the Conservative and Victorian Act of 1875 and the Liberal and Edwardian Act of 1906 when, so far as I can see, everything old and traditional is usually considered ample justification for its total abolition? It is difficult to answer these questions. The only answer possible in the words of a schoolboy would be "a lemon" or, in more Parliamentary language, "pure political acidity."
I ask the Government to think again on this question and to consider it from the point of view of the possible victim and his family, rather than the point of view of a politician or a union official. I hope we shall be treated to the views of some hon. Lady on the opposite benches before we are asked to vote on the Amendment. It directly affects the home, and I have always understood that the home is the very special province, interest, and, in some cases, authority, of what is commonly called one's better half. It would be of value to the Committee to hear such views. I see the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), who made a somewhat erratic incursion into the former Committee Debate. I hope we shall hear her views on this subject as we heard her forthright views on the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).
Whatever may have been said for the right to picket the home in 1906, or even up to the last war, it must be generally admitted that it is quite unnecessary now. Ample opportunity exists for information to be passed to the workers concerning any contemplated strike action m the actual progress of any dispute which may be taking place, through the trade union organisation, clubs, speeches, communications and a hundred and one ether ways. I feel there is no need to resort to picketing of the home unless it is—and I think this is a legitimate fear, expressed with all sincerity—that the picket may be used or was used in the past, not for the purpose of passing on information, but for peaceful persuasion. I do not wish to labour this point in order to stir up bad 860 feeling on this subject, but we must recognise that there has always been a great danger of abuse in this practice, and at all costs we should safeguard the home. Even if it is not abused in the future, and has not been abused in the past, I can see no earthly reason why political or industrial controversy should he brought to a man's home, except at his own invitation. I do not know what the experience of other married men in this Committee has been, but I have always found that a political controversy, even when introduced by oneself or one's wife, has a disruptive influence on the home and on marital relations. It is really intolerable that it should be introduced by an uninvited guest in the form of a peaceful picket.
On Second Reading I made a few observations on Subsection (4) and recited items from the formidable and ever increasing list of those who today can pester and worry a man in his home. The Attorney-General showed himself unduly sensitive to any repetition of argument put forward during the Committee stage. It is difficult for some of us who have not been trained to argue cases from different points of view, when considering a narrow issue like this, not to repeat some of the arguments we have used before. I do, not wish to risk giving any offence on that score. I am hopeful that the Attorney-General may be sympathetically disposed to some of the arguments we put forward on this Amendment, possibly not as a Socialist Attorney-General, but as a married man himself with, I am sure, a happy home of his own.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, that the remainder of the Section may appear to the Committee a bit naked by itself. I hope we are not going to have any old fashioned or prudish views put forward on that score, but that this Subsection will be decided upon its own merits. The retention of this Subsection does not prevent the carrying out of picketing in its proper place, outside the works or in another place. To our mind, the proper place is not the home. I ask hon. Members, whatever their views may be about the remainder of the 1927 Act, at least to ensure that the home is safeguarded from what we regard as a quite unnecessary intrusion and to keep it free from what may well be some of the more 861 undesirable features and abuses of picketing.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralShortly after the Committee had this Bill under consideration, I had the always melancholy task of looking through a proof of one of the speeches I had made in the course of one of the Committee's proceedings for the revised edition of HANSARD. I found, I had, quite without premeditation, made use of a phrase which I greatly regret. I said those who thought that a general strike could be stopped by
some comparatively unknown judge, sitting in some obscure court in the Chancery division."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February. 1916; Vol. 419, c. 1810.]were greatly mistaken. I am afraid that was a most unfortunately phrased observation, because it might have been understood to mean—although it was not so misunderstood at that time—that the validity and effect of a judgment depended on the judge who made it, or on the validity of the court in which he happened to sit. Whereas, of course, it is vitally important to maintain the principle that all judgments, by whatever judge, and in whatever court or in whatever division of a court they may be given, are equally binding and effective. Moreover, I should have been exceedingly sorry to have been thought to say something which might be even thought to appear disparaging to the Chancery Division. Although only a mere common lawyer myself, I well know the great difficulty and the great importance of the work which is so efficiently transacted in that Division.What I was seeking to say, and I think this bears repetition on every Clause of this Bill—was that in the midst of a great human movement, such as a general strike, every court becomes, in a sense, obscure, detached—remote, I think, would have been the better word, every court becomes, in a sense, remote, and any decisions which may be given by any court, however eminent, as, to the technicalities of the law, would either be unknown by, or be a matter of indifference to the great mass of the people concerned, as at that time they would be engaged on what they rightly or wrongly conceived to be some great, vital, moral or economic issue. That is why there is always some degree of artificiality about any legal argument about a particular 862 construction of any particular Section of the 1927 Act.
I wish, especially as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid) is here, to say a word or two about the general construction of Section 3 and, in particular, the construction of Subsection (4). I would like to acknowledge the courteous way in which, as one would expect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when we were last considering this matter, drew attention to the fact that the indictment in the Chester case, which we discussed so much, contained the word "threat." What he did not notice—nor did I at that time—was that that indictment was framed under the 1875 Act, and I intend to say a word or two about that Act in relation to this particular Subsection. The question of threat was, of course, rather more material under that Act, because of the interpretation which the courts put upon intimidation under its provisions, as amounting to something approaching a breach of the peace. One cannot really hope to construe a statutory provision by looking at the words which a possibly timid clerk of indictments may have put into an indictment. One has to look at the Statute and, if it is not clear, put oneself in the position of a jury, and see how the learned judge directs the jury as to what the law is under a particular Statute. One then sees that it is quite idle to use the words that have been bandied about on the other side of the Committee, even in the discussion today of this particular Subsection.
Discussing a similar matter, which is governed by similar considerations, Lord Justice Scrutton once said—the case is that of Ware and De Freville Ltd. v the Motor Trade Association:
In my humble judgment the discussion of this question would be much more lucid if the disputants would observe certain simple rules. First, to avoid question-begging epithets such as ' boycotting,' ostracisms.' the pillory.' ' coercion.‥ ‥and the like, And that great judge, Lord justice Atkin, as he then was, went on to say:In this case, as in so many others, the whole vocabulary of vague vituperation was invoked—threats, menaces, intimidation, coercion, compulsion, molestation, undue interferences.…and all the rest. One has to look at the Statute and see exactly what the Statute says. I venture to think that hon. Mem 863 bers opposite, in considering this particular Subsection of Section 3 of the 1927 Act, really have not bothered to consider at all what that Subsection says, or what the previous law said and the existing law provides in regard to this matter.I am invited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head to consider this Amendment on its merits. We shall do so. We have considered on its merits every possible amendment that could have been made to this Bill. We considered all the possibilities of dealing with this matter before the Bill was introduced, and we will consider this Amendment on its merits. What are its merits? Has it any? Without wishing to be in the least offensive about it, I suggest that hon. Members opposite are in complete and abysmal ignorance of what the 1927 Act really did. I cannot understand the excitement, synthetic excitement, though I realise it to be, which hon. Members opposite are seeking to engender in regard to this Subsection. In 1927 they said about this subsection—and they were right—that it did no more than declare the existing law, and make it a little clearer. Now, I have no doubt the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), for whose brief in this matter I am so much indebted, says that if we repeal this Subsection, and the rest of it, we shall be going back to a state of chaos and confusion.
The arguments that are being put up by hon. Members opposite in regard to this Subsection, I venture to classify as the ninepin argument." It is an argument with which Members opposite are particularly familiar, because they use it a great deal. They put up their own dialectical ninepin, close enough to be within easy reach, and proceed to throw balls until they knock it down to their own satisfaction. We have had hon. Members opposite telling us what a terrible thing watching and besetting a man's home is, seeking to make our hearts bleed at the experiences which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) has undergone, telling us how shameful it would be if anything of this kind were allowed to recur in this country. It really is the purest political bunkum. The law about this matter is perfectly clear. When this Subsection is repealed, as I invite the Committee to repeal it, it will 864 be lawful for persons to canvass peacefully in connection with trade disputes, just as it is lawful for people to canvass peacefully in connection with other matters, such as voting for the Tory Party in a general election. The position of the trade unionists engaged in a trade dispute will be put upon exactly the same basis. It is no use trying to make our hearts bleed about stories of watching and besetting, because under the 1875 Act watching and besetting was, is and will remain unlawful.
The Home Secretary who was responsible for dealing with these matters in connection with the 1927 Bill was quite clear about this matter. He said that while it was lawful to attend at a man's house for the purpose of peacefully persuading him to work or not to work, or whatever the case might he, a person who watched or beset the house or other place where such other persons resided, worked, or carried on business, committed an offence. It is a criminal offence today, and if a number of men persistently beset the house of a man who desires to work, and watched the house from time to time, watching him going in and coming out, that is an offence under the law as it stands today. If what hon. Members are complaining about is really what they say they are complaining about—watching and besetting—let me reassure them that that will remain illegal.
§ Colonel RopnerDo I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say this Subsection of the 1927 Act does not alter the law at all?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI find it extremely difficult to say what useful purpose this Subsection achieves.
§ Colonel RopnerDoes it alter the law?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not think it does, so far as watching and besetting is concerned. That was illegal under Section 7 of the Act of 1875, and it remains illegal.
§ Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs)Does the Subsection help to clarify the law?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI should have said this Subsection certainly did not do that. Reference has been made to the speech which was made before the Committee when we were dealing with the 865 earlier Subsections of this Section, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). Hon. Members will remember that the right hon. Gentleman sought to make our flesh creep by stories of the chaos and confusion which, he said, had existed at the Home Office in regard to this matter in the long ago when he was there. There was no trouble of this kind in the 1926 stoppage. The trouble, if any there was, must have been in earlier strikes, I suppose before the last war. The Committee may think it is going back a long way it we are to base legislation in 1946, upon experiences in the period between 1906 and 1914.
§ Mr. W. J. BrownThe right hon. Gentleman referred to was not at the Home Office then.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not know whether he was at the Home Office then or not, but, quite clearly from what was so fairly said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead, that must have been the period to which he was referring, if indeed he was referring to any specific period at all.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to suggest that what the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said was not fully accurate?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am not saying anything of the kind. I am saying he was drawing on his memory of experiences long since past.
§ The Attorney-GeneralLong since past—before the stoppage of 1926. The comment I make, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman invites a comment on this matter, is that if, as I readily accept, the Home Secretary at the time, and the police did in the period between 1906 and 1914 have difficulty in understanding and in applying the law, it is quite obvious—and I say this in all seriousness—that, in the (lays when that difficulty and misunderstanding existed in the Home Office, the Home Office must have been conducted very much less efficiently than it is today. I have the full authority of the Home Secretary, who is sitting behind me at this moment, to say so far as he and his Department are concerned, they have had 866 no assistance from this provision of the 1927 Act, and they do not expect the slightest difficulty from the repeal of this Subsection. I ask the Committee to say that this Subsection served, and serves, no useful purpose and that it should be repealed.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)I apologise to the Committee for having rather a sore throat. I hope it will not be difficult for my speech to be heard or understood. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General thinks that this particular Subsection has no merits whatever. I am delighted that he should have publicly committed himself to that view because precisely the opposite view was expressed in 1931 by the present Lord Chancellor, who will, presumably, conduct this Bill in another place. It may be that when the hon. and learned Member, for whose forensic ability I have the greatest admiration, next addresses the Committee he may have a little comment to make on his speech of today, just as today he had a little comment to make on what he said on another occasion about the Chancery Division. What is the problem to which we wish to direct our attention in this question of intimidation and picketing? It is surely how to draw the line so as to allow legitimate peaceful picketing and to prevent intimidation. That is the problem. I suggest that the law as it stands with the 1927 Act on the Statute Book does solve that problem satisfactorily.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) gave very forcible arguments for the merits of this Amendment. I did not hear from the Attorney-General or from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) one single argument of any kind against it. It was argued that the Subsection was unnecessary but it was not argued that, from any trade union point of view, it did any harm whatsoever. Now, let us consider the evidence on the question of intimidation. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) on a previous occasion referred to the evidence available at the Home Office. I should have thought—I almost took it for granted—that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not have come in now at the last moment just to take part in the 867 Division, but would have told us what his view was of the evidence available at the Home Office of the abuse with which this Subsection deals. Of course, it is not too late for him to intervene now. I hope that he will. Challenges were made by various Members opposite at an earlier stage in the Debate asking for an example. Well, let me inform the Committee where hon. Members can find plenty of examples: In the evidence given before the Royal Commission of 1906. [An HON. MEMBER: "1066."] I will give hon. Members a view on that evidence. I have no doubt the Home Secretary could supplement it with something much later, and I invite him to do so if the fact of the abuse is challenged. On the evidence given before that Royal Commission, no less a friend of the trade unions than Mr. Sidney Webb, as he then was, who, I am glad to say, is still with us, used these words:
The truth is that picketing—however conducted—when it consists of watching or besetting a house, etc., and it is to be observed that the Statute‥that is the 1875 Statute with which he was there dealing and to which the Attorney-General has referred—…places no limit to the number of persons attending for th.2 purpose only of obtaining or communicating information or to the length of time during which such attendance may be maintained—is always and of necessity in the nature of an annoyance to the person picketed. As such it must savour of compulsion, and it cannot be doubted that it is because it is found to compel that Trade Unions systematically resort to it. It is obvious how easy it must be to pass from the language of persuasion into that of abuse, and from words of abuse to threats and acts of violence. A considerable proportion of the cases of physical violence which occur during times of strike arise directly or indirectly out of picketing.That is not from a bitter enemy of the trade unions. That was the language of Mr. Sidney Webb. The evidence brought before that Royal Commission, it may be thought by hon. Members opposite, was evidence from very long ago. I agree that that evidence was, but, on the evidence which has been accumulating in the Home Office ever since, that—
§ Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)rose—
§ Mr. StraussI will give way in a moment. The hon. Member will find out when he 868 has been in the House a little longer that I invariably yield to an interruptor, but I might be allowed to choose my own moment. That I say was a good time ago, but we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities there was evidence subsequent to that which justified, in the view of that right hon. Gentleman, the inclusion of that Section in this Act. Now I will give way to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsThe question I wanted to put to the hon. Member is this. The 1906 Act follows the Commission, already referred to. Is it not a fact that the only modification that the 1906 Statute made in the previous law, that is, in the Statute of 1875, was in favour of the trade unions?
§ Mr. StraussCertainly, and if the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading my book, he will find out that I was in favour of modification, because I thought the decision in Charnock v. Court was a hardship on the trade unions. I may say that the legislation of 1906 did not fully follow the recommendations of the Commission. The question is: Is it really disputed that the evil, against which this Subsection gives protection, does, or may, occur?
§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)Watching or besetting is, in any event, illegal under the 1875 Act, and intimidation is illegal at common law. Would the hon. Member therefore give to the Committee a single hypothetical instance of something which will become legal, assuming that we are prepared to accept the views of hon. Members opposite?
§ Mr. StraussI think that a great deal of the abuses that may take place, and against which this Subsection is a protection, may, if sufficient evidence were available, render those offending liable under the earlier law. The merit of this Subsection is that it prevents this question arising at all, and is a good code as to what pickets can and cannot do. Although I agree with the hon. Member who raised this point that under Section 7 of the 1875 Act, watching and besetting is illegal, the question is how far Section 2 of the 1906 Act introduces an exception, and it is the protection of the home that is secured by Subsection (.4) of Section 3, for the retention of which my 869 right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has no',' moved.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWhere does Subsection (4) do that?
§ Mr. StraussBy the opening words "Notwithstanding anything in any Act," which means notwithstanding anything like Section 2 of the Act of r906. The hon. Member was a little in confusion when he referred to intimidation under the 1913 Act, which had as mach to do with it as the man in the moon. The material Sections are Section 7 of the 1875 Act, Section 2 of the 1906 Act and Section 3 of the 1927 Act. I should like to tell hon. Members opposite what was done by the Socialist Government of 1931. In approaching this particular problem of Section 3 and intimidation, they will notice that this Section has four Subsections. The first, which attempts accurately to summarise the law as laid down in 1875 and 1906, is declaratory and makes no change. I think the Attorney-General was wrong when he said the whole Section made no change, and that he should have said that the first Subsection makes no change.
§ Mr. BlackburnOn a point of Order. Is it in Order to discuss anything except Subsection (4)?
§ Mr. StraussWell, it must be, because—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI have been asked to give a Ruling. It is quite true that it is not in Order to discuss anything except the subject before the Committee.
§ Mr. StraussI was only saying that much of the learned Attorney-General's speech, to which I am replying, dealt with other Subsections. [Interruption.] Perhaps the learned Attorney-General will study the textbook writers.
§ The Attorney-GeneralBut, surely, the hon. Member is the great authority.
§ Mr. StraussThere obviously must be greater authorities than the man who has written one book on the subject, and I recommend them to the learned Attorney-General if he has any difficulty in construing the Subsection. Assuming that the learned Attorney-General is right, and that the Section makes no change in the law, why does he resist what is now pro 870 posed, and how, if it makes no change in the law, is it in any sense harmful? Supposing the hon. and learned Gentleman is right about the Section, is he doing such a kindness to the trade unions? The pickets have only to look at Subsections (I) and (4) to find a paper code on what they can and cannot do. If the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that no change is made, is correct, then after repeal one will have to look through all the other Acts, and all the legal commentaries, to find out what one can or cannot do. Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee what a Socialist Government did in 1931. Of these four Subsections, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Attorney-General, took pride in retaining the first, which was an accurate statement of the previous law. The second was the definition of intimidation, and he did criticise that, and said something different should be put in its place.
§ Mr. TiffanyWhat has either Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of the 1913 Act to do with this?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI was watching to see how far the hon. Gentleman was going.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. StraussI thought hon. Members were in a hurry to get on to other Amendments, but I do not mind the interruptions. When we come to Subsection (4), there is a change in the law—if not a very great change, still a change in the law—and it is a change which introduces protection of the home. I ask hon. Members opposite to consider this rather simple proposition. Supposing we had to choose between some curtailment of picketing and leaving the law in such a state that the peace of people in their home'; were threatened. Which, in the modern state of the power and greatness of trade unions, should we choose? The trade unions with their modern powers of publicity and their immense strength do not need the power to picket the home. But, in fact, they have not to choose between doing away with picketing and continuing intimidation; they can stop the intimidation in the home and they can have peaceful picketing. That can be done by continuing this Subsection. Not one hon. Member has pointed out any scintilla of damage which it has inflicted on anybody on any occasion. The learned Attorney-General, 871 differing from the Lord Chancellor, thinks there is no merit in this particular Subsection, but he has not told us why.
I ask hon. Members opposite whether they are quite sure that they are serving the interests and reputations of trade unions by saying that in 1946 the powerful trade unions need this power to picket the home? Is it really to the credit of trade unions to demand to have the power of the strong to bully the weak? [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh at this, but they will find that it is not popular in the country and that the trade unions, whose interests they think they are serving, or whose instructions they are obediently carrying out, will not be grateful for what they are doing. By insisting on sweeping away this Subsection they are doing more injury to the reputation of the trade unions of the country than anything which has been done for a long time.
§ Mr. W. S. Morrison (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)I apologise to the Committee for intervening in this discussion. It is so long since I was a lawyer, that I cannot claim any of that technical knowledge in which my hon. Friend who has just spoken is so rich. I am bound to say that, like other hon. Members not learned in the law, I always listen with a mixture of respect and anticipation when the Attorney-General of the day, whoever he may be, is, as they say in the law courts, "on his legs:" As I listened today to tile Attorney-General expounding the law on the subject, I was very dissatisfied with his explanation. Shortly, his explanation was that even if we wipe out this Subsection, which we are trying to retain, there will still remain the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, Section 7 of which still makes watching and besetting a house an offence. Where the learned Attorney-General's explanation to the Committee was deficient, if I may say so with respect, was that he omitted to say that since 1875 the Act of 1906 was passed, and that Section 2 of that Act replaced some words in Section 7 of the Act of 1875 and introduced the question of picketing. The trouble that really arose in 1926 and. 1927, and in the years since 1906, was not that the Act of 1875 was on the Statute Book, but that it, combined with the Act of 1906, left pickets 872 and the police in doubt what their legal powers and duties were. It was in an endeavour to clear up the doubt, that the Act of 1927 attempted to clarify the law. If we rely, as the Attorney-General advised, on the Act of 1875, we shall find ourselves in exactly the same position of doubt and uncertainty as existed before the Act of 1927, because the Act of 1875 will have to be construed together with Section 2 of the 1906 Act. Until the 1927 Act there was difficulty about it.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsWill the right hon. Gentleman say precisely what the doubt was?
§ Mr. MorrisonI could if the Committee would bear with me. Section 7 (4) of the 1875 Act made it a penalty to watch or beset a house.
§ Mr. MorrisonI will give way if the hon. Member insists, but I have already been asked to answer one question. In the Act hon. Members will find words which were subsequently repealed in 1906. After making watching and besetting an offence, the Act went on to add:
Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information, shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this Section.But those saving words for the protection of pickets who were lawfully about their business, without intimidation, were taken out of the Act of 1906, and Section 2 of that Act was substituted for the words I have just read. Section 2 of the 1906 Act says:It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working.The broad sense of these two Sections was to make one concourse of people for one purpose at a man's house legal, and another concourse of people at a man's house illegal. But where the line was to 873 be drawn was never clear until the Act of 1927. It is for that reason that we cannot go right back to the Act of 1875, without remembering that the Act of 1906, which was a source of confusion to the interpretation of the Act of 1875, is still on the Statute Book.The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—who I see is following my argument as he always has the courtesy to do—enunciated the proposition that if we are changing the law, it should be shown that the change is necessary, because of some mischief which has arisen out of the state of the law. The Government of his party are changing the law. The Act of 1927 has been on the Statute Book for all these years and the Government are now seeking to repeal it. Can the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, or any other hon. Member, show any mischief that has arisen affecting His Majesty's subjects through the existence of Subsection (4)?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI think the right hon. Gentleman has misstated the point. The law was established in 1906 and remained undisturbed until 1927. We have shown that the Act of 1927 ought to be changed, and we arc changing it. What the Opposition now want to do is to preserve a part of the 1927 Act, and the onus is on them to show why it ought to be preserved.
§ Mr. HicksI am moved by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to injustice: If we are to deal with the cause as well as the effect, would he be willing to change the Amendment so that, instead of visiting the workers' homes, we should deal with the cause and visit the employers' homes?
§ Mr. MorrisonI have been asked two questions, and I will deal with that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) first, because I think it is easier to dispose of it. The Act of 1927 was clearly drawn so as to make illegal actions by employers against workmen as well as illegal actions by workmen against employers, illegal at the same time. The hon. Gentleman need not have any doubt in his mind as to the fairness of the 1927 Act in that regard. To deal with the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne, he advanced the somewhat curious argument that the change in the law started in 1927. Of course, it did not. It 874 started in 1875. It has been changed ever since. I am asking the hon. Gentleman a question to which I have not yet had an answer. He feels it incumbent upon him to remove the declaratory provisions about the general strike—later on, no doubt, something will be said about the political levy—but why does he touch this safeguard to a man's home?
§ Mr. SilvermanSurely, the answer is clear enough. In our opinion, the law as settled in 1906 was correctly settled, and no reasonable complaint has been made of it since.
§ Mr. MorrisonI say with confidence, and without the slightest fear of contradiction, that there has never been the slightest complaint from any industrial section of the people against Subsection (4) which we are trying to retain today.
§ Mr. proctor (Eccles)The Opposition are dealing with the question as it affects a man's home. Would the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to this question? This Section deals not only with a man's home but with the place where he resides. Many railway officials reside on the railway companies' premises, and the approach to the station master's house is also the approach to the railway companies' premises.
§ Mr. MorrisonI do not think that is a question which need detain this Committee. If a charge were brought in those circumstances, the court would have to disentangle the question of domicile. No case has been made out for repealing this valuable provision which does remove from the arena of industrial conflicts a man's home and his wife and children. No doubt, a good deal of difference of opinion has been expressed in the Committee today as to whether or not there was ground for suspicion that watching and besetting was an evil. We can make up our own minds on that question. I do not profess to have been so closely involved in any industrial dispute as to have been watched or beset myself, or to have known any actual cases of it. so I cannot speak from that point of view, but I have seen the temper of crowds in an industrial dispute. I have been a passenger on the railway when I have gone through such areas, and no hon. Member can tell me that a crowd with its passions moved cannot be a very ugly and alarming thing. We know that an attempt to 875 discuss this question on the ground that no such thing as this ever occurs is beside the point. We know how ugly a crowd can be; we are friendly beings, but with tempers aroused we do things which we would not dream of doing in calmer moments. Therefore, there is every possibility that things of that sort may arise.
I wish to consider the matter on the evidence as it has been presented in the course of these Debates. I personally attach great weight to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) told us. I have known him long enough to know that he would not speak like this unless he thoroughly believed it to be true, and he had unrivalled sources of information. He said:
As the matter vas left by the Act of 1906, no distinction was drawn between watching and besetting a worker's place of business and watching and besetting a worker's home. I can assure the House that the records of the Home Office bristle with instances where the practice of besetting a worker's house was attended by oppressive conduct of the most outrageous description, and it is significant that there was no proposal in the Bill of 1931 to modify that particular provision of the Act of 1927.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 392.]I think therefore the evidence is this: There is that very concise, descriptive
§ piece of evidence. Also there is the fact that when the party opposite introduced their Bill in 1931, they embodied the words which we are seeking to retain, which they would not have embodied had they believed them to be oppressive and unnecessary. Therefore, I am left with the conclusion that without some safeguard of that sort we may get industrial disputes degenerating into engines of tyranny. Whatever one says about the merits of this proposition, there is no doubt that watching and besetting a man's house is against freedom. It is against his power to retire to that sanctum where he can consider matters unafraid. The other point is that it is in favour of violence as against free discussion. On these two grounds, I think it highly important at this difficult juncture of our affairs that we should retain this safeguard for a man's home, and I, therefore, hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 133.
879| Division No. 113. | AYES. | 5.50 p.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Brown, George (Belper) | Dodds, N. N |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Brown, T. J. (lnce) | Donovan, T. |
| Adamson, Mrs. J L. | Bruce, Maj. D. W. T | Douglas, F. C. R. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Burden, T. W. | Driberg, T. E. N. |
| Allighan, Garry | Burke, W. A. | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Dumpleton, C. W |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Callaghan, James | Durbin, E. F. M. |
| Attewell, H. C | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Dye, S. |
| Austin, H. L. | Chamberlain, R. A- | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C |
| Awbery, S. S. | Champion, A. J. | Edelman, M. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Chater, D. | Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B | Chetwynd, Capt. G. R | Edwards, John (Blackburn) |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Clitherow, Dr. R | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) |
| Baird, Capt. J. | Cluse, W. S. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) |
| Balfour, A. | Cobb, F. A | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J | Cocks, F. S. | Farthing, W. J. |
| Barstow, P. G. | Coldrick, W | Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.) |
| Barton, C. | Collick, P. | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) |
| Battley, J. R. | Collindridge, F. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Collins, V. J. | Gaitskell, H. T N |
| Belcher, J. W. | Colman, Miss G. M | Gibson, C. W |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Comyns, Dr. L. | Gilzean, A. |
| Berry, H. | Corlett, Dr. J. | Goodrich, H. E. |
| Binns, J | Cove, W. G. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Crawley, Flt.-lieut. A | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Blenkinsop, Capt. A | Daines, P. | Greenwood, A. W- J. (Heywood) |
| Boardman, H. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Davies, Edward (Burslam) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) |
| Bowden Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Griffiths, Capt. W D. (Moss Side) |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Davies. Harold (Leek) | Guest, Dr. L. Haden |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Gunter, Capt. R. J. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Deer, G. | Guy, W. H. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Diamond, J | Hairs. Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) |
| Hale, Leslie | Montague, F. | Solley, L J. |
| Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Moody, A. S. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Stamford, W. |
| Hardman, D. R. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) | Steele, T. |
| Hardy, E. A. | Mort, D. L. | Stephen, C. |
| Harrison, J. | Moyle, A. | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Naylor, T. E. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Haworth, J. | Neal, H. (Claycross) | Stubbs, A. E. |
| Hicks, G. | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Hobson, C. R. | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Holman, P. | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Noel-Buxton, Lady | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Horabin, T. L. | O'Brien, T. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Hoy, J. | Old field, W. H. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Orbach, M. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle) | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Thorneycrofl, H. |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Thurtle, E. |
| Janner, B. | Pearson, A. | Tiffany, S. |
| Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Peart, Capt. T. F. | Timmons, J. |
| Jones, D T. (Hartlepools) | Perrins, W. | Titterington, M. F. |
| Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) | Popplewell, E. | Tolley, L. |
| Keenan, W. | Porter, E. (Warrington) | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Kenyon, C. | Porter, G. (Leeds) | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Kinley, J. | Pritt, D. N. | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Lang, G. | Proctor, W. T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lavers, S. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Walkden, E. |
| Lee, Miss J, (Cannock) | Ranger, J. | Walker, G. H. |
| Leslie, J. R. | Rankin, J. | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Levy, B. W. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Reeves, J. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Lindgren, G. S. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Weitzman, D. |
| Lipton, Lt.-Col. M | Rhodes, H. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Longden, F. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M | Wells, W T (Walsall) |
| Lyne, A. W. | Robens, A. | White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| McAdam, W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| McAllister, G | Rogers, G. H. R. | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| McEntee, V. La T. | Sargood, R. | Wilkes, Maj. L. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Scollan, T. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Mack, J. D. | Segal, Dr. S. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E- A. A. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Maclean, N. (Govan) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| McLeavy, F. | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| McNeil, H. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Williamson, T. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Willis, E. |
| Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) | Simmons, C. J. | Wilson, J. H. |
| Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Skeffington, A. M. | Wise, Major F. J |
| Marshall, F. (Brighside) | Skeffington-Lodge, T C | Woods, G. S. |
| Mathers, G. | Skinnard, F. W. | Yates, V. F. |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) | Younger, Hon Kenneth |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Mikardo, Ian | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | |
| Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Smith, T. (Normanton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Monslow, W. | Snow, Capt. J. W. | Mr. Joseph Henderson and Captain Bing |
| NOES. | ||
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Crcokshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Hogg, Hon. Q. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hollis, M. C. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ) | Crowder, Capt J. F E. | Hope, Lord J. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Cuthbert, W. N. | Howard, Hon. A. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Darling, Sir W. Y | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) |
| Baxter, A. B. | De la Bere, R. | Hurd, A. |
| Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel | Digby, Maj. S. W. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) |
| Bowen, R. | Drayson, Capt. G. B. | Jarvis, Sir J. |
| Bower, N. | Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Jeffreys, General Sir G. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Eccles, D. M. | Kendall, W. D. |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Lambert, Hon. G. |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Langford-Holt, J. |
| Brown, W. J. (Rugby) | Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) |
| Carson, E. | Gates, Maj. E. E. | Linstead, H. N. |
| Challen, C. | Grimston, R. V. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Low, Brig. A. R. W. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge) | Lucas, Major Sir J. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Harris, H. Wilson | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H |
| Cooper-Key, E. M | Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (l. of Wight) |
| Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.) |
| McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Prescott, Stanley | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. |
| Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Raikes, H V. | Touche, G. C |
| Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Ramsay, Maj. S. | Turton, R. H. |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Marples, A. E. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Marsden, Capt. A. | Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) | Ward, Hon G. R. |
| Marshall, D. (Bodmin) | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) | Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie |
| Medlicott, Brig. F. | Robertson, Sir D (Streatham) | Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey) |
| Mellor, Sir J. | Ropner, Col. L. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J |
| Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | Ross, Sir R. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Savory, Prof. D. L | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Smithers, Sir W. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Spearman, A. C. M. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Neven-Spence, Sir B. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Nicholson, G. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) | |
| O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Osborne, C. | Studholme, H. G. | Mr. Drewe and commander Agnew |
| Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Sutclifte, H. | |
| Pitman, I. J. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
§ Question put, accordingly, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
880§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 280.
881| Division 114.] | AYES. | [6.0 p.m. |
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Harris, H. Wilson | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Osborne, C. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hogg, Hon. Q. | Pitman, l. J. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Hollis, M. C. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry). |
| Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel | Hope, Lord J. | Prescott, Stanley |
| Bossom, A. C | Howard, Hon. A. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Bowen R. | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bower, N. | Hurd, A. | Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Jeffreys, General Sir G. | Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) |
| Brown, W. J. (Rugby) | Kendall, W. D. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Savory, Prof. D. L. |
| Carson, E. | Langford-Holt, J. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Challen, C. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M | Linstead, H. N. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J |
| Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Lloyd, Mai Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Studholme, H. G. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (l. of Wight) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Da la Bere, R. | Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Touche, G. C |
| Digby, Maj. S. W. | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Turton, R. H. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Drayson, Capt. G. B. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Eccles, D. M. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Marples, A. E. | Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey) |
| Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. | Marsden, Capt. A. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Medlicott, Brig. F. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. | Mellor, Sir J. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gates, Maj. E. E. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Grimston, R. V. | Neven-Spence, Sir B. | |
| Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Nicholson, G | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge) | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | Mr. Joseph Henderson and Captain Bing. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Ayles, W. H. | Belcher, J. W. |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Bellenger, F. J |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Bacon, Miss A. | Berry, H. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Baird, Capt. J. | Binns, J. |
| Allighan, Garry | Balfour, A. | Blackburn, A. R. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J | Blenkinsop, Capt. A. |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Barstow, P. G. | Boardman, H. |
| Attewell, H. C. | Barton, C. | Bottomley, A. G. |
| Austin, H. L. | Battley, J. R. | Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Bechervaise, A. E. | Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Excn'ge) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Rogers, G. H. R |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Sargood, R. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) | Scollan, T. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Scott-Elliot, W. |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Segal, Dr. S. |
| Bruce, Maj. D. W. T | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. |
| Burden, T. W. | Janner, B. | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Burke, W. A. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Callaghan, James | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Caslle, Mrs. B. A. | Keenan, W. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Chamberlain, R. A. | Kenyon, C. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Champion, A. J. | Kinley, J. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Chater, D. | Lang, G. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C |
| Chetwynd. Capt. G. R | Lavers, S. | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Clitherow, Dr. R. | Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Cluse, W. S | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Cobb, F. A | Leslie, J. R. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Levy, B. W. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Coldrick, W. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Snow, Capt. J. W |
| Collick, P. | Lindgren, G. S. | Solley, L. J. |
| Collindridge, F. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Collins, V. J. | Longden, F. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Colman, Miss G. M | Lyne, A. W. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | McAdam, W. | Stamford, W |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | McAllister, G. | Steele, T. |
| Corvedale, Viscount | McEntee, V. La t | Stephen, C. |
| Cove, W G. | MoGhee, H. G | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. | Mack, J. D. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Daines, P. | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Stubbs, A E. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Maclean, N. (Govan) | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | McLeavy, F. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | McNeil, H. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N) | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Deer, G. | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Diamond, J. | Marshall, F. (Brightside) | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Dodds, N. N. | Mathers, G. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Donovan, T. | Mayhew, C. P. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G- R. (Ed'b'gh, E). |
| Douglas, F. C. R. | Middleton. Mrs. L. | Thorneycroft, H. |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Mikardo. Ian | Thurtle, E. |
| Dumpleton, C. W. | Mitohison, Maj. G. R. | Tiffany, S. |
| Durbin, E F. M. | Monslow, W. | Timmons, J. |
| Dye, S. | Montague, F. | Titterington, M. F |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Moody, A. S. | Tolley, L. |
| Edelman, M. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Turner-Samuels, M. |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) | Usborne, Henry |
| Edwards, W. J. (Whiteohapel) | Moyle, A. | Vernon, Maj W. F. |
| Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Naylor, T. E. | Viant, S. P. |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Neal, H. (Claycross) | Walkden, E. |
| Farthing, W. J. | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Walker, G. H. |
| Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) |
| Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Noel-Buxton, Lady | Warbey, W N. |
| Gaitskell, H. T. N | O'Brien, T. | Weitzman, D. |
| Gibson, C. W | Oldfield, W. H. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Gilzean, A. | Oliver, G. H. | Wells, W T. (Walsall) |
| Goodrich, H. E. | Orbach, M. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Gordon-Walker, P. C. | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Palmer, A. M. F | Wigg, Col. G E. |
| Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) | Pargiter, G. A | Wilcook, Group-Capt. C. A. B |
| Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Parker, J. | Wilkes, Maj. L. |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) | Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Guest, Dr. L. Haden | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Willey, O G. (Cleveland) |
| Gunter, Capt. R. J. | Pearson, A. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Guy, W. H. | Peart, Capt. T. F | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Haire, Flt.-Lieul. J. (Wycombe) | Perrins, W. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Hale, Leslie | Popplewell, E. | Williamson, T. |
| Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Porter, E. (Warrington) | Willis, E. |
| Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R | Porter, G. (Leeds) | Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J |
| Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Pritt, D. N. | Wilson, J. H. |
| Hardman, D. R | Proctor, W. T. | Wise, Major F. J |
| Hardy, E. A. | Pursey, Cmdr. H | Woodburn, A. |
| Harrison, J. | Ranger, J. | Woods, G. S |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Rankin, J. | Yates, V. F. |
| Haworth, J. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Younger, Hon Kenneth |
| Hicks, G. | Reeves, J. | Zilliaous, K. |
| Hobson, C. R. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | |
| Holman, P. | Rhodes, H | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. | Mr. Drewe and Commander Agnew |
| Horabin, T. L. | Robens, A. | |
| Hoy. J. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
With the exception of Section four thereof and Schedules 1 and 2 thereto.Undoubtedly this Amendment raises a very vital question, which, I hope, will be considered as one that affects everyone and every Member of this House, without distinction of party. When the trade unions were first established, contributions made to the trade unions' funds were, undoubtedly, used for political purposes. No one thought of raising the question until it was raised in the great case which we all know, the Osborne case. Then the courts decided that those contributions should not be used for political purposes. The matter had to be brought to this House. It was brought before the House by the Liberal Government of 1912, and the following year the Act of 1913 became law. Under that Act the distinction is drawn between the statutory and political objects of trade unions. The statutory objects are defined as those concerned with the relations between employers and men and the benefits that shall be given to members of trade unions by the unions themselves. The political objects are defined by Section 3 of that Act. They are such things as the payment of expenses of a candidate, the payment of expenses of a meeting or of literature, and the payment of expenses of meetings or literature generally.Under the Act of 1913 is laid down the rule which should be followed by trade unions, and it is, that before a trade union can have political objects the matter must be brought before the trade union at a special meeting. There must be a proposal that it shall have political objects. The matter is then put to the vote of those present, and the voting takes place in secret by ballot. Then, if it is desired that political objects shall be part of the objects of the trade union, a fund can be established for those political objects. That fund, again, has to be separate from the other funds. [An HON. MEMBER: "After the vote of the members?"] Yes, after the vote of the members.
6.15 p.m.
But the Act of 1913 did not compel a man to devote any part of his money to a political object if he disagreed with it. It allowed a man to state specifically that 884 he did not want to make his contribution. He had a form and signed it, and said that so far as he was concerned, none of his money was to be given for political objects. That was the law down to 1927. In 1927 they reversed this. Instead of a member who desired not to subscribe having to sign a particular form and saying he would not subscribe, the burden was put upon the member of the trade union who wanted to subscribe and he had to ask for a form declaring that he wanted to subscribe. In both cases, the matter has to be brought before the full trade union on specific grounds. In both cases, a meeting has to be called specifically for deciding whether they will have political objects or not. In both cases, the matter is decided by a majority by secret ballot, and in both cases there is no compulsion upon anyone to subscribe if he does not want to subscribe. Both cases are exactly the same so far as that goes.
If there had not been that protection a majority would have had it in their power to compel anyone to subscribe towards a political fund with which he did not agree. It has been said that pressure, and especially political pressure, can be brought and has been brought to bear upon someone who, under the old Act, desired to contract out. It is also said that political pressure might be brought upon a person under the Act of 1927 who failed to contract in. If there is such a thing I should think that pressure is equal in either case. The point to my mind is this. Which is the fairer way, which is the more democratic? Which is the way that really meets the general wishes of the people of this country? We were responsible for bringing in the Act of 1913, and then this House and, indeed, all parties agreed to that method now known as contracting out. Then in 1927 they reversed that and we have had the experience from 1927 down to today—
§ Mr. William Adams (Hammersmith, South)May I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman supported the 1927 Act?
§ Mr. DaviesI am much obliged to the hon. Member. If he will do me the honour of recalling what I said on the Second Reading of this very Bill he will see that we opposed the Act of 1927. I and my colleagues supported the hon. Member's party in the Government in the 885 Second Reading of this very Bill. But I did say that I thought that so far as this Clause was concerned, I hoped that the Government would see fit to accept this Amendment. I still hope so. I hope that they will realise that this method is the fairer and the more democratic method. The Attorney-General in his speech dealt with this matter, as one would have expected of him, fairly. He faced the matter squarely.
Perhaps I may refer the Committee to what the Attorney-General said, on 12th February, when he was dealing with this matter. He used these words:
The truth is, of course—and I confess it quite frankly—where you have any large body of people you come up against a certain degree of human inertia, which prevents certain numbers taking any particular action. They just cannot be bothered filling in a form, whether it is a form to contract in or contract out. They cannot be troubled doing it, they cannot be bothered and they let the thing go.The question here is very simple, whether the trade unions, which by a majority have decided to have a political fund, should benefit if you like from that human inertia, as I have called it, to the extent of throwing the onus on the dissentient minority to declare their objection to contribute to particular political funds, or whether the onus should be put the other way, and whether the majority, who have already voted in favour of the political fund, should be required to go further, and fill in a form showing they wish to make a Particular contribution.That, I hope, is a similar description to the one which I have given of the point at issue. But what is the other confession which the Attorney-General made? He went on to say:Let me say at once that that Section is the only Section of this Act which, in part, did achieve its purpose.I recognise that the Attorney-General was saying the purpose was a vindictive one to punish the trade unionist. He continued:We did lose the benefit of that particular element, the inertia element who could not be bothered to fill in a form, and, as a result, the contributions to the political funds went down." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1046, Vol. 459; C. 209, 210.]He went on to give a number of particulars. The Attorney-General did not pretend that a political matter was on a par with any other matter, but I must confess I was rather surprised that that point of view was taken by the President of the Board of Trade. I should have thought that a political object, or rather a matter of politics, was a matter for the indivi- 886 dual conscience, to be kept strictly away from any other object of the trade unions. The President of the Board of Trade Suggested that this was a matter which ought to be accepted by all Members, merely because the majority were in favour of it. Is it really the view of hon. Members opposite that a man must give way politically and subscribe to something in which he does not believe, merely because the majority are in favour of it? I should have thought that in their minds they would have kept separate political conscience from other things. Although the amount of contribution towards the political fund has seriously gone down, it has not affected trade unions, nor has it adversely affected the Labour Party. Prior to the Act of 1913, the Labour Party commanded something like 500,000 votes. That is my recollection of the position in 1910 In 1945, that 500,00o had grown to 12 million. Therefore, it has had no deleterious effect upon the Labour Party or upon the trade unions. What is more, not only since 1913, but since 1927, the numbers in the trade unions have grown. They have grown in importance as well as in numbers, and again I say that this could not possibly have affected them.What is the purpose, therefore, in asking these people to cash in on inertia? Is it really the view of hon. Members opposite that it is better to have 100 per cent. of the people on your side, contributing perhaps against their will, merely because they are indifferent, than to have a much smaller percentage of enthusiastic people, believing in the cause and contributing willingly towards it? I should have thought that this Government would have preferred the volunteer who believes in the cause, who will vote for it, contribute towards it, and even make sacrifices for it, rather than that the money of some indifferent persons, who do not care one way or the other, should be taken, I would point out another matter which is perfectly obvious. There are vast numbers of members of trade unions who do not vote for the party opposite. Is it right, when it comes to a question of voting, that these people should be conscious of the fact that they will now be voting for some cause which is against the cause for which they have already contributed? The Attorney-General said, very rightly, that there is the contracting-out system. He mentioned that there were people who would not bother one way or 887 the other to take out their money. The money will go towards the support of a party with which, when it comes to an election, they do not believe and will vote against.
§ Mr. Tolley (Kidderminster)Is the hon. and learned Member suggesting that the average intelligent trade unionist will pay a political levy for, a political party to which he does not wish to subscribe?
§ Mr. DaviesThat is the very argument, and I hope the hon. Member will use it. Can the hon. Member otherwise explain why, in 1927, the figures suddenly rose?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWould not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree, if a man found himself in the position of voting against a political cause to whose funds he had already financially contributed, that it would be due not to any fault in the law but to his own inertia?
§ Mr. DaviesIt is due to both. It is due, in the first place, to his inertia in not contracting out because he has not bothered, and, secondly, if the position is reversed, he will not be contributing towards a cause to which he does not believe. Does the hon. Gentleman want to take on the unwilling contributors? They were taking money, during the period prior to 1927, from people who did not agree with their political party, and "cashing in "on political inertia.
6.3o p.m.
As to the fairness of this Amendment, there cannot be the slightest doubt. It is far and away better for any party to have free, independent, enthusiastic, if you like, supporters, rather than the other sort, and it certainly cannot be right to take the money of any person for political purposes, unless he is ready and willing to contribute. For these reasons, I hope that the Government can accept this Amendment. I myself have been quite willing that they should do away with parts of the Act of 1927 to which they fundamentally object, but I hope that they will use this occasion to bring in, with the assistance of the trade unions, a new charter governing trade unions. I am perfectly convinced that if they do that, they will not under that charter do as they did in 1913—hope to build up their party on money not given willingly, readily and voluntarily.
§ Colonel Ropner (Barkston Ash)I do not think that any hon. Member of this Committee will dispute the contention that the provisions of the 1913 Act were an honest attempt to give fair and full scope to the political aspirations of the trade union movement, and, at the same time, to preserve the liberties of individual trade unionists. But by the early 1920s, it had become quite clear that the 1913 Act needed amendment in at least two respects. In the first place, the 1913 Act, in the light of experience, had proved unsatisfactory, because it was not possible for trade unionists to ascertain either what proportion of their individual contributions were credited to the general or political funds respectively, or the total amount of money spent by their unions on political objects. This flaw in the 1913 Act was particularly apparent in the case of unregistered trade unions. Grave financial irregularities were committed by unregistered trade unions. [Interruption.] I will give names if the right hon. Gentleman presses me. No adequate redress or safeguard against irregularities was available to the members of those trade unions. In the second place, the 1913 Act proved to be unsatisfactory—
§ The Attorney-GeneralTo whom?
§ Colonel RopnerTo the trade unionists themselves, and it gave rise to serious abuse by reason of the enactment which provided for what is now known as "contracting out." It is, therefore, not surprising—and this answers the interjection made by the Attorney-General—that long before 1927, there had developed within the trade union movement itself a demand for amending legislation, and, from time to time, before the 1927 Act—which, of course, dealt with a very much larger range of subjects—Bills were introduced into this House to deal with the unsatisfactory position, so far as the political levy was concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "By whom? "] I am quite unable to remember the names of the individuals who introduced these Bills.
§ The Attorney-Generalrose—
§ Colonel RopnerIf the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to old numbers of HANSARD, he will have no difficulty in finding out by whom the Bills were introduced.
§ The Attorney-GeneralDo I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be suggesting that it had given rise to dissatisfaction among the trade unions? Was he suggesting that these Bills were introduced into this House by trade union representatives, or was he inviting the Committee to suppose that they were introduced by the Labour Party? Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman could refresh our memories about that. I do not know, but my recollection is that these Bills were introduced by Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, then Member for West Norwood, who was a party to the 1927 Act, and who was credited with the authorship of it.
§ Colonel RopnerUp to this point of my speech, I have made neither suggestion, but I was going to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the second or third effort of Private Members to protect the interests of their trade unionist constituents, was made almost exactly 22 years ago, in March, 1924, not long after the Labour Party had assumed office for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS: By whom? "] The then hon. and learned Member for Norwood introduced that Bill. I have reminded the House of these facts, not only because the hon. and gallant Member who then represented the Sedgefield Division of Durham made his maiden speech during the Second Reading of the Bill which was introduced to deal with the political levy, but chiefly because it will prove—I hope to the satisfaction of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite—that the inclusion of Section 4 into the 1927 Act was certainly not prompted by the events of 1926, whatever may be said about the other Sections of the 1927 Act, but was introduced into that Act by reason of the demand which had arisen.
§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Owing to the constant interruptions by hon. Members opposite, including the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, may I ask you, who occupy the Chair, if you will tell the Attorney-General to allow speakers on this side of the House to continue?
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)This is not a matter upon which I can give a decision.
§ Earl WintertonI call your attention to the fact that the Attorney-General on five or six occasions interrupted the hon. and gallant Member, and I ask you whether this is in Order.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt is not out of Order. I have already given my Ruling on the point. While it is not out of Order to have such interruptions or interjections, I would point out to the Committee that the interruptions and the interjections must not be increased.
§ Colonel RopnerI have no objections to the interruptions of the Attorney-General. I only hope that the answers I have given will satisfy him.
§ Mr. Popplewell (Newcastle upon Tyne, West)Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman resumes, will he say who was the Member for Sedgefield at the time to which he refers?
§ Colonel RopnerThe hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash. I think that it is a fair conclusion that Section 4 of the 1927 Act certainly did not arise out of the events of 1926. Indeed, long before 1926 this was a very live issue I do not think I am exaggerating when I say it was a burning issue among trade unionists in certain parts of the country, especially among Conservative and Liberal trade unionists, and also that large number to which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway drew our attention, who had no close political allegiance. They felt, prior to 1927, that they had a legitimate grievance, and that grievance was redressed by the 1927 Act. Some 20 years later a Labour Government desired once more to curtail the political liberty of trade unionists, and, as I hope to show, to encourage once again victimisation against a certain section of them.
Section 4 of the 1927 Act achieved or attempted to achieve—and I think it succeeded—two objects, firstly, to prevent irregularities in the administration of the funds of the trade unions, and. secondly, to restore complete political liberty to trade unionists. Subsection (2) of Section 4 of the 1927 Act says—I hope the Committee will forgive me for reading an abbreviated form of the Subsection, but I do not think in doing so I am misquoting the Act: 891
All contributions to the political fund of a trade union shall be levied and made separately from any contributions to the other funds of the trade union.That is the first important point of this Subsection. Secondly:No assets of a trade union other than those forming part of the political fund shall be directly or indirectly applied or charged in furtherance of any political object.In other words, trade unionists must know how much they are subscribing to the political fund, and the political funds alone may be applied for political objects.6.45 p.m.
I have not much to say about this Subsection, but I have some questions to ask, and I hope the Attorney-General or the Minister of Labour when replying will give me an answer to them. Why is it desired to change the law as it stands? Is it considered inexpedient that men. should not be able to be informed concerning the contributions which they make to the Labour Party? Is it desired to apply funds other than the political fund to the support of Socialism? I submit that this House has a right to demand an answer to those questions, and that the country has a right to know, and perhaps, above all, trade unionists themselves have a right to know. May I say that there is one answer to the question which would not suffice because it will carry no conviction, and that is merely to make counter charges against such venerable institutions as the Carlton Club or the Conservative Clubs, or against company directors and so on. If these institutions and organisations are at all comparable—I do not think that any Member of this House really believes that they are—then the proper thing to do is to bring in a Bill to deal with them. The Government cannot get away by excusing the actions they propose to take with regard to trade unionists by counter charges against other organisations.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to ask a question? I quite agree that if there is a wrong done in one place it is not required to do the same wrong in another place. There has been a Commission on company law sitting for a long time. Does the hon. and gallant Member know of any evidence coming before that Commission in regard to the calling up of shares, levies, and that kind of thing, 892 supporting the principle that is contained in this Amendment?
§ Colonel RopnerNo, I do not. I am sorry but I have not yet read the evidence. If the hon. Gentleman knows some appropriate answer to his own question perhaps he will tell us later on.
§ Mr. SilvermanThe answer is that no such evidence has been given.
§ Colonel RopnerFurther, I say that merely quoting cases of this sort does not serve as an excuse for swindling the trade unionists.
§ Mr. SilvermanWhat?
§ Colonel RopnerSwindling the trade unionists.
§ Mr. SilvermanOn a point of Order. I should like to ask whether it is in Order in support of an argument in favour of this Amendment to charge a large number of reputable organisations with swindling their members.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt may be undesirable, but it is not an un-Parliamentary expression.
§ Mr. SilvermanFurther to that point of Order. I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to be arguing that to speak or vote against this Amendment meant that Members doing so would be swindling trade union funds.
§ Earl WintertonNo.
§ Mr. SilvermanI should like to know whether it is in Order for one Member of the Committee to accuse large numbers of Members with being a party to a swindle.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanA charge of swindling against any one Member would be out of Order.
§ Mr. SilvermanAgainst a number?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI said that while it may be undesirable, it is not an un-Parliamentary expression.
§ Mr. SilvermanFurther to that Ruling. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to make a specific charge not merely against one Member, but against all the Members who are not in favour of this Amendment, that they were swindling trade unions. I resent that, and should like to know whether it is in Order to make it.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI have given my Ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It is not a matter upon which I can ask the hon. Member to withdraw. It is a matter for him to decide.
§ Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East)On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has described as a swindle the action of trade unionists. There are Members on this side of the Committee who have been, and still are, trade union officials, and as you have ruled, Mr. Beaumont, that such an expression as the hon. and gallant Gentleman used would not be in Order if it were applied to an individual Member, may I ask you, as a trade union official myself, whether that is not an insult to me?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt may be true that Members may regard it as an insult, but until the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) specifies another Member by name, I have to rule that he is in Order. [Laughter.]
§ Mr. Haworth (Liverpool, Walton)This may seem to be a matter for laughter among Members opposite, but in view of the fact that every penny spent on political activity in my union, and every other union, before the passage of the 1927 Bill has been spent only on the authorisation of the appropriate trade union, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite consider that the word "swindling" is an appropriate expression?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI think it would be of advantage to the Debate if we were to continue. It is undesirable that charges of the kind made by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash should be made, but it is a matter for him to decide. He has not made any specific charge against anybody, and therefore the question of Privilege does not arise.
§ Mr. PopplewellFurther to the point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash has made an allegation of swindling against trade unions, whose rules have to be approved by the Registrarx2014;
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI think the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash has already heard sufficient of the opinions of the Committee, and it is desirable that he should now proceed with his speech.
§ Colonel RopnerI have heard a large number of opinions as to what I said, but none of them bore any resemblance to what I said except the original interjection of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne who, however, after interrupting three times then grossly misrepresented what I said, and what in fact he admitted I said in his first interjection. So much for Subsection (2), except that I would like again to ask the Government what is wrong with the law as it stands. With regard to—
§ Mr. SilvermanOn a point of Order. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash will not deny that he did use the word "swindling." If he feels that Members on this side have objected to, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what he was referring to when he used that word, will he now say what he was referring to, and what was the swindle?
§ Colonel RopnerPerhaps the hon. Member will read HANSARD tomorrow.
§ Mr. SilvermanThe hon. and gallant Member and I have been long enough in this House to know that Members do not like to hurl charges of swindling against one another. If he did mean to use that word will he say what he was referring to?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. and learned Member cannot remain on his feet unless the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash gives way.
§ Mr. HughesBut the hon, and gallant Member has given way.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI did not notice that he had; that is why I called the hon. and learned Gentleman to Order.
§ Colonel RopnerI think the Committee will agree that I have given way on a number of occasions, and that I ought to have the indulgence of hon. Members opposite now, and be allowed to proceed with my remarks.
§ Mr. HughesRepeat the charge of "swindling" outside this House.
§ Colonel RopnerSubsection (1) of Section (4) of the 1927 Act substituted contracting in for contracting out.
§ Mr. TolleyOn a point of Order. Is it not a fact, Mr. Beaumont, that the failure of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash to state a case relative to the word "swindling" conveys the implication that all Members on this side of the Committee are swindlers?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThat is not a point of Order. I cannot insist on the hon. and gallant Member taking a certain line in his speech. I think it will be to the advantage of the Debate if we allow him to proceed with his speech.
§ Colonel RopnerSubsection (1) of Section (4) of the 1927 Act substituted contracting in for contracting out. This Subsection, and previous Bills dealing with this matter, were not only strenuously opposed by hon. Members opposite, but were, and have been during the passage of this Bill, subject to the wildest misrepresentation and absurd allegations. We have been told frequently that to endeavour, by force of law, to substitute contracting in for contracting out is an attempt to stifle the political activities of trade unions. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Labour said, in 1924, when this matter was under discussion:
We should have to have an annual flag day in order to get our people to pay their political contributions.He, at least, could not have thought that there was much enthusiasm at that time behind, the payment of the political levy. Time has proved that these allegations, suspicions or forecasts, call them what you will, were quite unjustified even then, and are even more unjustified if they are repeated in the light of experience since 1927. The 1927 Act has worked fairly. Does the Minister of Labour dispute that? If not, then why go back to the law as it stood in 1913? The 1913 Act certainly did not work fairly.
§ 7.0. p.m.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsIn what respect?
§ Colonel RopnerThe 1913 Act certainly did not work fairly in practice. Those who contracted out under that Act were often subject to humiliations.
§ Mr. HaworthOn a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I draw your attention to the fact that we cannot hear what the hon. and gallant Member is saying because the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham 896 (Earl Winterton) is interrupting all the time?
§ Mr. W. J. BrownFurther to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Are you aware that some little time ago the interruptions from hon. Members opposite were so frequent that I could not hear myself speaking?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI think that if interruptions on both sides of the Committee ceased, we might be able to hear better. Interruptions tend to make speeches longer and Debates protracted.
§ Earl WintertonFurther to that point of Order. If hon. Members on this side were allowed to speak without constant interruption from the Government and their supporters, might it not facilitate the Debate and allow some of us to speak before the Closure is moved?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI have already indicated my view on the subject.
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South)May I ask you, Mr. Beaumont, to extend your Ruling to muttering by hon. Members opposite?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI suggest that if the conduct of the Debate were left to the Chair, it would be more satisfactory.
§ Colonel RopnerWhen I was interrupted, I was telling the Committee that those who contracted out under the 1913 Act were, before 1927, often subject to humiliations, and to active intimidation, and frequently every difficulty was put in the way of those who desired to free themselves from the obligation to subscribe to the Labour Party. I ask, Why go back to the 1913 Act? What fault is found with the law as it stands? In regard to this Subsection, I want to meet an argument which may be advanced in support of its repeal. It is no answer to the criticism which we level at the Government, and it simply will not do, to say that a man who contracts out is no less and no more obvious or marked than a man who contracts in. For one reason or another, the 1927 Act has not worked like that and it is a fact that prior to 1927, complaints that intimidation was rife in some localities were frequent; whereas since 1927 such has not been the case.
I assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that I speak with knowledge about the situation in the Sedgefield 897 Division prior to 1927. Hon. Members opposite are not the only Members who have friends in the trade union movement. When I was representing that mining constituency, before the passage of the 1927 Act, on scores of occasions men or their wives came to me in distress, because the victimisation which they had experienced as a result of making efforts to contract out of the political levy. I ask again, why change the law? Is it just one more step along the road which will lead to that place where the Foreign Secretary shall lose his wretched little stigma? The Foreign Secretary has been nursing his poor little stigma for 20 years. I suggest that he may be very lonely if he loses it. Certainly, no action that we can take in 1946 will wrench from his arms the stigma which was borne by reason of his action in 1926. In any case, to everyone other than the Foreign Secretary this stigma of his is of no sort of consequence or importance.
What is important, and vastly important, to the good name of this country is the good name of the trade union movement. I assert that there is no demand today from within the trade union movement for a change in the law. The fact of the matter is that the Labour Party wants more money; just that, and only that. So base have become the conceptions of the Labour Party that they do not hesitate to grab the unwilling pennies from men and women who, having no strong political convictions, hesitate before taking the trouble to contract out of the political levy, or shrink from facing the difficulties, the persecution, or victimisation, which may befall them if they disclaim sympathy with that party which seems to agree with the totalitarian interpretation of the word "democracy.'' Why go back to 1926? Frankly, I have not yet heard in this Debate, or in any other Debate, any convincing reply to that question. I apologise if I seem to have been speaking for a long while, but in point of fact, I have occupied the Committee only for a very short time. Other hon. Members have, during my speech, occupied far more of the time than I.
I desire, finally, to call the attention of the Committee to one reason why it is more important today than ever before that the 1927 Act should remain on the Statute Book. I suggest it is a reason 898 which will become ever more important as time goes on. In many industries in this country, it is becoming increasingly difficult for non-trade unionists to get a job. In passing, may I say that I have consistently, both as a Member of Parliament and as an industrialist, supported the trade union movement? I believe in collective bargaining. Perhaps I have been fortunate in dealing with a union in which cooperation and good will have been 99 per cent. as between employers and employees; and I hope that nothing I have said tonight will be interpreted as being an attack on the trade union movement. Far from it. The trade union movement is essential to the future of industry in this country. The greater the degree of compulsion to join the trade unions, the greater is the wrong in denying complete political liberty to trade unionists. If the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, I suggest that we shall be approaching a situation in which a Labour Government will enforce support of the Labour Party as a price which must be paid for getting a job.
We on these Benches consistently fight for freedom. Political freedom is one of the freedoms which we value highly in this country, and there can be no question, I submit, that as between contracting in and contracting out the former gives the greater measure of political freedom. The Foreign Secretary does not want to change the law. He said so in as many words in the House during the Second Reading Debate. There must be many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who share his opinion and do not want to change the law so far as Section 4 of the 1927 Act is concerned. It is, therefore, with some hope of success that I ask the Government with all sincerity to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. Naylor (Southwark, South-East)Of all the Amendments on the Paper I look upon this as the least justified. I am not surprised that the official Opposition should have passed the baby to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies).
Mr. C. DavitsSo far from waiting for the official Opposition, as the hon. Member suggests, I was first. I put down the Amendment within a moment of the Bill receiving its Second Reading.
§ Mr. NaylorI accept the explanation of the hon. and learned Member that be 899 adopted the child. He put up a more or less historical case, as did the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), but it seems to me that the only issue before the Committee is whether members of trade unions should contract in or contract out. I had some experience in the administration of the 1913 Act. When it was introduced, it was my business to ascertain from the membership of my union whether they would favour political action I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise how carefully protected the non-political member of a union is by virtue of the provisions that are made, in the first case, by the Chief Registrar.
7.15 p.m.
I ask hon. Members to come with me in imagination to my trade union office and I shall try to show them what the position is. This is what happened over 30 years ago. The Chief Registrar at that time, after the passing of the 1913 Act, issued what was described as a model set of rules—they could he altered in detail, but not in principle—and I believe the agreement of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress was secured before he issued them. What happened? First the Executive met. They studied the rules and came to the conclusion that they would consult their members on whether or not there should be a political section in connection with the union. The next step was to consult the members who, either at a meeting or subsequently by ballot, had to determine whether or not they would accept the rules as printed. Let hon. Members then assume that we are present at a meeting of the trade union membership after the ballot has been taken and a favourable decision given. Present at that meeting are members who have voted in favour of the political levy and those who have voted against. The question I have to put to that meeting is whether or not a decision has been given in secret ballot. The answer is, "Yes." The members have decided that they will form a political section and are willing to pay a levy of so much a year, subject to the exemption of those who object.
If we tell the members who are on the side of the majority that their decision does not count until they contract in, is that not asking them to undo what they have already done? The union has de- 900 cided by a majority that a certain thing shall be done. If it were not for the Act of Parliament, members who objected would have to pay as well as those who voted in favour, but the Act of 1913 gave the right to the protesting member to exemption. I ask hon. Members—and I ask the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery who said we should look fairly and squarely at this question—Is it the more reasonable course to ask the man who has voted with the majority in favour of a political section to contract in? It seems to me that if the exempting member wishes to be excused from the vote, it is up to him to make application in the ordinary way.
Vice-Admiral TaylorThe members of the trade union have not voted whether they will contract in or out. What they voted on was whether to have a political levy, which is a slightly different thing.
§ Mr. NaylorI thought I had made it clear that the question put to the members was not just whether they favoured political action but whether they approved the complete rules of the proposed political section, which contain all the conditions applying to membership of the political section, including the payment of the levy.
§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)If the union sends out a list of rules of the kind described by the hon. Member, what percentage of the members really take the trouble to read them through?
§ Mr. NaylorI can tell the hon. Member that they do. He cannot expect me to answer a question of that kind relating to the entire trade union movement, but I am prepared to answer it in relation to my own union. I can assure him, from my personal knowledge, that at least 8o per cent. of the membership —[An HON. MEMBER: "It was 90 percent. just now."] I am speaking of one union. There may be other unions in which the proportion is 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. As I was saying, 80 per cent. of my members, at least, study those rules. These are really high-class, intellectual representatives of the trade union movement, and they voted by a large majority in favour of political action
§ Mr. OsborneWould the hon. Member allow me to ask a question on one other point? What percentage turns up at the average trade union lodge or branch meeting; and what interest do they take in the movement?
§ Mr. NaylorThere is no question of lodge meetings or branch meetings. The question has to go to a ballot of the entire membership. Therefore, whatever vote is taken is regarded as representative of the opinion of the majority. It is not too much to expect the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to revise his own opinion on this matter. So far as I can see he has offered no argument in favour of the change, but excused his Amendment on the ground of the inertia of a certain proportion of members of trade unions. That was his statement. He thought it was not fair; that men who had not taken the trouble to contract out were unfairly treated because they might be paying contributions to other political parties. I assure him that the men who are paying into the political section of the trade unions today arc not also paying into the political funds of any other Party, whether Liberal or Conservative. He can relieve his mind of any apprehension as to whether a proportion of the Members of the unions might be allied to his own Party. I would say to him: Have no fear in the matter. My experience of the Conservative and Liberal members of my union teaches me that they are as independent, and as ready to state their political opinion, as is any member of the Labour Party. Where trade union matters are concerned, politics do not cause dissension in the ranks. It is only when trade unions are attacked from outside, that they begin to fear that justice is not being done.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Byers (Dorset, Northern)Will the hon. Member follow out that argument and say whether it is not a fact that a certain number of members cannot make up their minds at any given time whether they are Labour, Liberal, or something else? Is he prepared to say that while that man is undecided, he must go on paying the political levy until he has made up his mind?
§ Mr. NaylorThat question seems to add something to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery 902 about inertia. A member of a trade union is undecided what to do—and the hon. and gallant Member asks me whether it is fair that the man who cannot make up his mind should be taxed in this way. The man has the right to contract out. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that there are not many trade union members who are undecided in these days. A man is either for or against political action, and for or against payment of the levy for a particular Party. We find no lack of independence and political courage among our members. Here and there we find a Conservative; here and there we find a Liberal; here and there we find a Member of the Party of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). Therefore it seems to me that the Committee cannot do other than reject the Amendment on the grounds of historical accuracy—we are only going back to 1913—and on the grounds of logic and justice.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle upon Tyne North)I have listened to the whole of this Debate with considerable interest. I am still rather uncertain what the objection to the Amendment can he. Until I embarked upon an active political career, I was, I frankly admit, quite uninformed about what the political levy was. Had I not lived in a very politically-minded county, and stood for a constituency in it, I might still be as ignorant about the political levy and all it implies, as are the mass of the citizens of this country. Organised labour forms, after all, only a small minority of our people. I can see no reason in principle against a trade union adopting a policy of imposing a political levy upon its members, if a majority support it, provided always that no individual member shall be forced to subscribe to the levy if it is to be used to finance a political party to which he does not belong, or does not wish to belong. This principle would be agreed to by every fair-minded man, whatever his political opinion. In a free country, no citizen should be compelled, against his will, to contribute to the funds of any political party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If that premise is agreed, as apparently it is, the question really before the Committee today is: By what method can liberty of action be best secured to a member of a trade union which is affiliated to a particular political party as regards the payment of the 903 political levy? Is it to be by contracting out, or by contracting in as laid down in the Act of 1927?
When moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Attorney-General was, I thought, somewhat lighthearted about the matter. I admired the ability and the plausibility of all he said, but when he made certain assertions with regard to the reasons why people do or do not pay into the levy, I was a little astonished. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) quoted a passage from the speech of the Attorney-General which I intended to quote. It is the passage which deals with what the Attorney-General describes as a "very simple issue." The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
Whether the trade unions, which by a majority have decided to have a political fund, should benefit if you like from that human inertia, as I have called it, to the extent of throwing the onus on the dissentient minority to declare their objection to contribute to particular political funds, or whether the onus should be put the other way."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 209.]7.30 p.m.I do not continue the quotation because it will be in the recollection of the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman next proceeded to argue that in the case of any ordinary organisation, a club or a company, the normal practice was to throw the onus on a minority to claim the benefit, and he saw no reason why this should be the same in the matter of the political levy. In this proposition I entirely disagree with the Attorney-General, and the reason for my disagreement is that the case of a club member or a company stockholder, cannot be compared with that of a contributor to a political levy. The member of a club or holder of shares in a company is a free agent. He can resign his membership; he can sell his shares, if he is dissatisfied with the rules or the management, but a trade unionist cannot retire from his union without seriously endangering his livelihood. He must, therefore, conform to the rules of the union. He may he entirely opposed to his union being affiliated to a particular political party. If he is a minority, he must suffer under that unfortunate rule by which it is constituted—and we all know minorities must suffer—but if he is to abide by the decision of the majority, he may be placed in a 904 most awkward position with regard to his political convictions. We are all agreed, however, that he should not be compelled to subscribe to the funds of the party in question, nor, in my opinion, should a member of a trade union, even if he is a supporter of a political party, be forced to contribute to its funds against his will. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] We are all agreed on that.
I am putting the case as frankly and clearly as I possibly can. My contention is that, in a matter of this kind, which is really a matter outside the ordinary functions of a trade union, and is concerned with a man's personal convictions and political principles, it is by far the fairest plan to make it a rule for him to signify his willingness to pay a political levy by contracting in, than to take it for granted that he is willing to pay the levy unless he contracts out.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsIs not the trade unionist fully protected, apart from that, in every possible way by Section 3 of the 1913 Act?
§ Sir C. HeadlamThe hon. Member and I are not likely to be in agreement, because I do not think any man in the position of a trade unionist is ever fully protected in this particular matter.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsAgainst what?
§ Sir C. HeadlamWould the hon. Member like me to try to answer his first question before he puts a second? The trade unionist may have the protection of the law. I have known many a case where a man is entitled to the protection of the law, but it is extremely difficult to get that protection sometimes, as the hon. Member knows. I have seen too many cases, and he must have heard of a great many cases, where those difficulties have arisen.
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsWill the right hon. and gallant Member say in what way the trade unionist is not protected?
§ Sir C. HeadlamI thought I had explained the difficulty of applying the law. It is very difficult for the private individual, particularly if he is not protected by a powerful union—
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)Protected against what?
§ Sir C. HeadlamIn the matter of the payment of his levy. If hon. Members would listen instead of asking questions they would appreciate I am trying to develop an argument, and make it as clear as possible. In my opinion a man is in a better position to be secure with regard to his political views, if he contracts in rather than if he contracts out. I am now going to try to explain what I mean. I hold this view strongly, and I hope I may prevail on the Government to accept it. The Attorney-General, I thought, was rather cynical when he said there was no difference between contracting out and contracting in. In both cases, he said, those who refuse to pay the levy were "marked men." What did the Attorney-General mean by "marked men "? I am trying to suggest that a man who is in a minority, who refuses to take the view of a majority, and lives cheek by jowl with them and works daily with them is in a very difficult position. That is what I mean by a "marked man."
It was, I think, the Attorney-General who said that Section 4 of the Act of 1927, the repeal of which we are now discussing, had no useful purpose, I quite admit —I expect it is the case in many instances —that the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion may have something in it. No doubt things are still made unpleasant for men whose political opinions are known to differ from those held by the majority of their fellows. That is inevitable, but there is far less unpleasantness, so far as I can ascertain, in my part of the country, than existed before the Act of 1927—in other words before the adoption of the system of contracting in. I used to have case after case brought to my attention, where people were bullied and intimidated and made unhappy, because they were marked men to such an extent that their names were stuck up outside pitheads and they were made to stand up in the union lodges because they had contracted out or wished to contract out of the political levy. In the days that I am talking about—not so many years ago—men who wished to contract out of paying the levy were, in my part of the country, undoubtedly subject to all this unpleasantness. I gather now that it is not so great as it used to be. The result was that the number of miners, Conservatives or Liberals, who contracted out was com- 906 paratively small in proportion to their number because the majority of them disliked all this unpleasantness which resulted from contracting out. Now, the man who fails to contract in may, as the Attorney-General has suggested, not do so because he just cannot be bothered to fill in his form, but, under this system, his political views are not necessarily disclosed if he fails to contract in, and I am told that this new system has been a real help to those who are opposed to the views of the majority.
I ask the Government, therefore, to accept this Amendment, which is designed to ensure the political liberties of the individual. I cannot believe that it is really the intention of the Party opposite to obtain financial support for their political aims by extracting subscriptions from involuntary subscribers. The great development in membership that has taken place in trades unions since the Act of 1927, shows that that Act has not injured their development in the slightest degree. It seems to me that the substitution of contracting in for contracting out has not done anything to injure the political strength of the Party opposite. If it has made the position of non-Socialists less unpleasant, surely hon. Members opposite do not mind that?
The argument for repealing the Act of 1927 is that it was a negative measure designed to punish the T.U.C. for its promotion of the general strike. The party opposite do not argue that the Act has restricted the development of trade unionism because the facts are against it. They are thrusting this Bill through Parliament to satisfy the amour proper of T.U.C. leaders who were responsible for the general strike. In doing so, I am certain they are laying up trouble for future governments in this country, whether Conservative or Socialist, because no man can tell what may be the future political complexion of the trade unions; they may not always be led by the fairly sensible, pink-coloured gentlemen who are now in control.
Let me draw attention to one more of the arguments used by the Attorney-General with regard to the political levy. He asserted in his speech on Second Reading that if pressure is brought to bear upon an individual to pay a levy, or he is subject to intimidation for not doing so, he has the right to go to a very powerful, 907 independent, impartial tribunal in the form of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies. Perhaps, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will be so good as to amplify what he means by that statement? I know that the power of going to the Registrar exists, and the difficulty only arises for the ordinary citizen as to how to proceed.
§ Mr. Leslie (Sedgefield)He gets advice from the union.
§ Sir C. HeadlamHe gets plenty of advice from the union if he happens to be a supporter of the faction that is running the union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know what I am talking about because I have had some experience of this myself. How, for instance, is a Durham miner to approach the Registrar-General? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me when he replies. I know, however, that it is an extremely difficult thing to do unless the miner has someone to tell him how to do it. And how is the Registrar-General in a position to protect a Durham miner, or any other working man, effectively from intimidation or unpleasantness? I ask these questions because I know of cases where particularly determined men, who have refused to pay the political levy, have—usually with the assistance of the Conservative or Liberal Parties—made application to the Registrar-General. Who is to help them otherwise? It was a long and tiresome process in the case of one with which I had to deal. Application was made to the Registrar-General and approval of the man's exemption and refund of his payments was made, but it took nearly two years before the business was finally settled. Surely, if contracting out is to be revived, some speedier and more easy method of obtaining exemption should be devised?
7.45 p.m.
I would like to sum up what will he the position as I understand it, if Section 4 of the Act of 1927 is repealed. It will still be obligatory for a trade union, whether registered or unregistered, to keep the political fund separate, but it will be difficult to check abuses should they arise because, unless I am mistaken, there need no longer be a separate levy. If there is no such separate levy, it will be very difficult to check transfers, as 908 for example by book entries from the general to the political fund. There would appear to be nothing to prevent the general fund from being charged with the support of political purposes for which its subscribers did not intend it to be used. And finally, it would seem that the unregistered trade union will be freed from the liability, now imposed by Section 4(6) of the Act of 1927, to make annual returns of the political funds on its registers. If I am wrong in my contentions, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will be so good as to put my mind at ease, because they seem to me rather serious matters which should be taken into account and made clear by the Government in some form or other.
§ Mr. Leslie (Sedgefield)We have listened to a rather curious speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner). It was obvious that he had little knowledge of trades unions, or trade union methods, when he charged trades unions with swindling. In the course of his remarks the hon. and gallant Gentleman made a reflection on the division which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons. He declared that there was a considerable amount of coercion on the part of the Durham miners. What are the facts? For the 12 years prior to the 1927 Act, only 64 cases were presented to the Registrar, and over half of these were found to have no substance in fact. That, I think, clearly indicates that there was no coercion for men to contract in.
I was somewhat surprised that this Amendment should come from the Liberal Party, who now propose to retreat from their own Act of 1913 and seek to reimpose the 1927 Act by contracting in. Might I remind our Liberal friends of what the Grand Old Man of the Liberal Party had to say about trades unions? Gladstone, in his heyday, declared that trades unions were "the bulwarks of democracy," and they certainly have proved that during the recent war. We know that, prior to the Osborne decision of 1911, trade unions believed that they could spend their funds on political purposes. The 1913 Act provided for the setting up of a political fund, and members of a union objecting to the tribute could contract out. Before that political fund could be set up, as the Committee have already been informed by other speakers. the majority of the members 909 had to decide this. Surely the will of the majority ought to suffice? Why, therefore, all this humbug about contracting in or contracting out? I contend that a trade union should be free to spend its funds as the majority decides, and if a trade union believes that it is better to do it by political action rather than by strike action, why should a trade union not be free to do so? After all, it has to be borne in mind that the Factory Acts, the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the Mining Acts, the Shop Acts, the Truck Act, and pensions were all the outcome of trade union agitation. That was the real reason for the formation of a Labour Party, to legislate for like measures. I honestly believe that the Osborne decision, and the Taff Vale decision, proved blessings in disguise by uniting the workers to take political action. I hope that this Amendment put forward by the Liberal Party will be defeated.
§ Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs)One has the feeling that this is a field day for union officials and lawyers. I am not certain that lawyers and union officials should not be debarred from voting.
§ Mr. Alfred Edwards (Middlesbrough, East)What about the employers?
§ Mr. MaclayThere may well be a case for debarring all interested parties from voting, and for leaving the rest to judge the case on the merits of the arguments put forward, and if that is done I have little doubt as to the result. However, the point to which I want to refer has not been touched upon very much. It was mentioned right at the beginning of the Attorney-General's opening speech on Second Reading when he said:
In so far as this Bill improves, as it undoubtedly will improve, the atmosphere in industry."—[OFFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1946: Vol. 419, c. 193.]That, to a man not involved as a lawyer or union official, is the test—What is the best thing in the interests of the country as a whole, industry as a whole, and, above all, for relations between industry and employers? The Attorney-General must feel that his early optimism about the Bill improving the relationship does not look like being fulfilled.I wish to deal with one specific point, That is the case of those industries in which employers have, for some time, made a habit of collecting union dues 910 from members on behalf of unions. I am not certain in how many industries that takes place, but I know that shipowners normally, by a friendly voluntary arrangement with the union concerned, do collect from seamen, and other ratings, the union dues which are payable from time to time. That is an entirely admirable thing. It shows that under the old Act—and I think the practice only started after 1927—a really good working relationship has been worked out. I doubt very much whether the change proposed, particularly the substitution of contracting out for contracting in, will contribute to good relations. Here is a point that the employer must look at. If one can make a friendly arrangement with the union concerned, it is not only easy for the man to pay his own contribution, but, if he takes the trouble to contract in, one can make arrangements for him also in that respect, in the the same way as shipowners pay allotments to the man's family. What about the position in the future, if this Amendment is not accepted? I should make it clear that I am speaking entirely as an individual, and not on behalf of anyone. I have not consulted anyone on this, it is my own view and I do not say that my own industry would be affected in the future. But this is a difficult question for the employer to face. He will find that, if he goes on with the old arrangement, he is collecting dues from his own men, and he will not be certain that that money is to be used for purposes of which the man approves. Hon. Members opposite will say that the man can contract out, but one then comes to another uncertainty—this question of intimidation. [Laughter.] It is no use laughing about that; it is a very real problem.
I have been consulted recently about this. A young man in the drawing office of a large firm of shipbuilders said, "Some of us are very worried about what will happen. We know there will be intimidation." Hon. Members may say that that is one case, a put-up job, but they must admit that there is a good deal of doubt in this matter. With this new uncertainty in their minds, employers who make these arrangements in regard to the collection of dues will have to think again whether they are even morally right in acting as agents for unions, in doing something which may result in a man's money actually being 911 misused. It is a very serious matter, and I hope it will be considered seriously by hon. Members on the benches opposite.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs)We have had a long Debate, and I think we have heard almost the same little story time and time again. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not suggesting that any individual hon. Member has repeated himself time and time again, but it certainly seemed as if two or three hon. Members, one after the other, made the same speech. What we have to consider is the question of what is right and proper, and what is best in the circumstances—to contract in, or to contract out. That is the one central point. What a lot of camouflage has been slung around, and what a lot of unfair things have been said.
Not the slightest objection can be taken to the manner in which the Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I cannot agree with some of the things he said, but no objection is raised as to the terms and tone of his speech. He said that this change would not meet with the general wish of the country. That may be his opinion, but those of us who mix with the working people of the country, do think it is the general wish. He also made some reference to individual conscience. After all is said and done, that conscience ought to act at the time when the man is voting, as well as when he puts his hand into his pocket to pay the contribution. Every union member has an opportunity to vote, and to say whether the organisation should adopt a political fund and political levies. As the hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) says, it is all laid down very rigidly by the Registrar-General, who says that the rules must be in such and such a form, and that the ballot must be taken in a certain way. Surely, the conscience of the man operates when he votes. Is it suggested that there are many men voting in favour of a political fund and intending never to pay to it at all? No one knows how they vote, and, therefore, having taken their share in the ballot, they ought to be bound by the rule of the majority on the question of the fund. I do not think there is any objection to that point, that the will of the majority should prevail.
912 Then comes the question of giving the Member the right of being exempt from payment when he does not wish to pay. In spite of some of the theories and arguments—one might pick out a bad case of pressure here and there—the test is, to what extent do such cases exist? I am associated, not with the whole trade union movement, but with one section. I challenge anyone in the Committee to produce the slightest evidence of where in the printing industry, covering about 280,000 organised workers, there has ever been any trouble about the question of the right of refusing to pay a contribution. I believe it is very much the same elsewhere.
I went to the trouble of inquiring of seven of our largest unions which, between them, cover 2,000,000 members. I have authority to give their names and particulars if required. There is nothing to hide about it.
8.0 p.m.
What has happened? The first thing we found was that so far as any record exists considerably fewer than 100 cases of complaint had been made to the Registrar about unfair treatment under the law prior to the 1927 Act. The hon. Gentleman who spoke just now from the Front Bench opposite said that those concerned did not complain to the Registrar, but went to the Tory organisation. As a matter of fact, some of us know of cases in which the Tory organisation has gone to the member. We know of cases in which a member could not complain that he could not get a contracting out form, because the local Tory organisation had them in sheaves to hand out to anybody they could encourage to come to them. What has happened since 1927? So far as I understand the position, the Registrar has practically no complaints to make about any intimidation of people in connection with this Section of the Act. Yet according to the stories we have heard here, there has been intimidation. Whether a man contracts in or contracts out is known to those who handle the business of the branch of the society; it is known to the collector in the workshop; it is marked on a member's card whether he does or does not pay the levy. I have my own card in my pocket, if anyone wishes to see it. Although there might here and there be cases of some intimidation of some sort, it is also true that although we have laws against burglaries, 913 burglaries still take place. One cannot stop everything. There are no genuine cases of trouble of this kind. This is evidence that those who do not wish to pay, by which method we will consider in a moment, have not had any real grievance. There has been no real complaint.
I wish to reply to the questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), who I am sorry is not here, because I wish to make a pertinent comment about something he said. He said that we are curtailing political liberty and that the trade unionists must know how much they pay to the political fund, and what are the other assets. He asked me two specific questions, which I propose to answer. I have not his actual words. As a matter of fact, we wanted him to make them a little more precise, but we shall have to wait for HANSARD to see what he said. He asked firstly: "Why change the law? Do you wish to deny a man the right to know what he pays? "Secondly:" Do the trade unions want to apply other assets for political purposes? "That is the spirit of what he said. Whether we make this change or not, what difference does it make to whether a man knows the law or not, so far as denying him the right to know what he pays is concerned? Every man knows what he pays.
§ Mr. Quintin HoggI think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) made his point very plain. He was referring to the Subsection of the Statute which he read out, which was the Subsection that provided that there should be special information given. The difference which he suggested would be made by this Bill lies in the repeal, amongst other parts of this Section, of Subsection (2), which he read.
§ Mr. BlackburnOn a point of Order. Is it relevant to the Subsection which we are now considering for this point to be made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg)?
§ Mr. HoggFurther to that point of Order. As I understand the matter, it is quite plain that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash made a point in which he asked two specific questions of the right hon. Gentleman who, in replying, very courteously 914 gave way to me. It did not occur to me, when I strove to show what was the quite important point which my hon. and gallant Friend made, that a further digression would be made by way of a point of Order.
§ The Chairman (Major Milner)The matter appears to be relevant.
§ Mr. IsaacsWhile I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) for giving me this lawyer's answer on the matter, I am not dealing with it as a lawyer but plainly and bluntly, as a trade unionist would look at it.
§ Mr. HoggThe right hon. Gentleman has. given way, rightly and courteously. There is no question of any lawyer's answer. He expressed his regret that my hon. and gallant Friend was not here to hear the answer to his question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] May I ask for your protection, Major Milner?
§ The ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I say that he repeatedly intervenes, and at considerable length. If he would put his point shortly, he would perhaps make it with less interruption.
§ Mr. HoggI should find it easier to put my point briefly if I was not so constantly interrupted. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to say that he could not understand why a particular question should have been put to him. I sought to point out that if he had only been paying attention to the point made, not by any lawyer but by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, he would have seen what my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind in regard to Subsection (2), with which the right hon. Gentleman is apparently very loth to deal.
§ The ChairmanThat is not a point of Order. The hon. Member has made his point twice, and I hope he will not intervene again on the same one.
§ Mr. HoggOn a point of Order. It seemed to me, with respect, that I was entitled to do so because the right hon. Gentleman gave way. The right hon. Gentleman was accusing me of making what he described as a lawyer's point. Surely I am entitled to reply? It was not made by me at all, but by somebody else.
§ The ChairmanI have already given a Ruling on the hon. Member's intervention, and that Ruling should be abided by.
§ Mr. IsaacsThe hon. Gentleman, in one of his interruptions, said that if he was not interrupted so much he could make his point more quickly. If I had not been interrupted by him I could have made my point more quickly. I do not need the hon. Member to tell me what the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said was in an Act of Parliament. I heard what the hon. and gallant Member said, and if I have quoted him wrongly we shall find out tomorrow. So far as I understood his question he said, "Why change the law? Is it because you do not want the men to have the right to know what they pay? "What utter nonsense. Why does anyone want to quote an Act of Parliament about that? Surely a man knows what he pays? If he pays his full contribution and pays to the political fund he knows that by the fact of his rules. If he only looks at his contribution card he knows that he is paying it. If he is not paying it he knows what he is not paying because he does not pay it. It is perfectly clear that the trade unions have taken every possible step, with. scrupulous care, not only to make sure they obey the law, but that the members of the unions know what the law is. So far as that point is concerned there is ample evidence.
The hon. and gallant Member's second point was whether the trade unions wanted to apply other assets for political purposes. I do not know whether he knows that the trade unions print their accounts, that their accounts are audited by auditors, in the vast majority of cases —the large unions—by public auditors, and that to apply other assets for political purposes one would have to "diddle" the auditor and then publish these accounts to one's members. If one can get away with "diddling" one's trade union membership about the accounts, one is doing something. I am not saying that I have tried; I have never been silly enough to do so. The accounts are examined, not only by the members but by the branches, and at the annual conference. Any suggestion that any one would apply assets other than the political fund for political purposes is ridiculous. With the exception 916 of the unregistered trade unions, trade union reports and accounts have to go to the Registrar. If every one who handles any political fund money were to publish with the same scrupulous care as do the trade unions, every detail of their payments—[Interruption.]
Following that came a reference to which strong exception was taken. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not here. He made some reference which we could not exactly understand, and which he would not repeat so that we could understand it. He said something about swindling trade unions. I do not know whether he meant the trade unions were swindling, the trade unions were being swindled, or that the trade unions were used to swindle somebody else. I have been a member of a trade union for a great number of years. We do not want any lectures from any hon. Gentleman as to swindling. We have been swindled, more than we have swindled. The hon. and gallant Gentleman made no withdrawal. Again, it is all a question of contracting in and contracting out. What a wonderful difference this seems to make in the minds of some hon. Members.
§ Lord John Hope (Midlothian and Peebles, Northern)It makes a difference in the fund, anyway.
§ Mr. IsaacsSuppose it does.
§ Lord John HopeThat is why I am saying it.
§ Mr. IsaacsHon, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposing it because it makes a difference. I am afraid I might get another lecture if I give way again. [AN HON. MEMBER: "If the Closure is not moved."] We can explain; but what is the good of explaining? You would not understand if I did
§ The ChairmanThe right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that observation would appear to be addressed to the Chair.
§ Mr. IsaacsI apologise, Major Milner. In the turmoil of the Debate I expressed myself incorrectly. We have statements made by the same hon. and gallant Member about complaints of intimidation be- 917 fore 1927 which, he said, were rife in some localities. One hon. Member gave the figure of complaints before 1927. He said it was 64. I was not certain of the figure. I said it was somewhere under 100. We were told that men and women went to the hon. and gallant Member in great distress because of the suffering they were undergoing because they were unable to contract out. I cannot say what I would like to say because the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not here. It would not be right to say it in his absence. He then went on to tell us that the good name of the trade unions, and the good name of the country, would depend upon our decision on this matter tonight—that is, the decision on this matter of contracting in and contracting out Well now, what is the real difference?
The theory is that it a man wants to contract out he has to go along and ask for a form. Going along and asking for the form means that his branch secretary, or his lodge collector, says, "Oh, you want a form. I might put a black mark against your name and you may suffer for it." What utter nonsense A man's conscience is respected If he does not want to pay he does not have to pay What is the difference? It is said if he wants a form to contract out he will become a marked man. He has to have a form to contract in. What is the difference? Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite understand that every branch collector, lodge secretary, and shop collector when he collects the contribution of the individual member, has to show whether or not that man is paying his contribution to the political fund However a man gets a form the thing will be known. If there was any desire to make him a marked man he would be a marked man. If a man does not want to ask his branch secretary for a form he can always get one from the Registrar We had a little homily from the Front Bench opposite about getting the form from the Registrar If all else fails and his branch refuses, he can write to the Registrar and say his branch secretary refuses to give him a form and he can complain that that was a breach of the law and of the Act itself These matters are fully and completely covered.
I am glad to see that the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash has now returned The hon. and gallant Member made a reference to swindling trade 918 unions. I want to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when he was questioned about it he would not clarify his statement and make clear what he meant. He left the innuendo in the minds of the Committee that he meant there was some swindling of some sort in conection with the trade unions. Whether he meant the unions or the members of the unions, we do not know. He would not withdraw that remark and we have it in our minds. He tried to put before this Committee that there was some swindling going on in the trade unions. Those who know the trade unions know that is not so. We think the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to have been decent enough to withdraw his statement or explain his meaning
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Colonel RopnerPerhaps the right hon Gentleman will give me the opportunity of doing so now. The purport of my remarks was to the effect that before the passing of the 1927 Act the conscious confusion of the general funds and the political funds collected by some trade unions called for the most severe strictures on the part of the Registrar-General It was to that experience of the past that I referred. I venture to suggest that trade unions again on rare occasions may be tempted to embark upon equally nefarious practices in the future
§ Mr. IsaacsI think we can let it go at that. The hon and gallant Gentleman, I think, has shown what he thinks by carefully abstaining from making use of the word which he used before. That word has neither been explained nor withdrawn. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been here, he would have heard me say, as I will repeat, that the accounts of all trade unions are examined by auditors, submitted to their members and published for the whole world to see. As for any question of confusion. I do not see how it arises
§ Colonel Ropnerrose—
§ Mr. IsaacsPerhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will try again
§ Colonel RopnerI am quite determined to meet the challenge which the right hon Gentleman has levelled against me I am perfectly prepared to repeat, if he wants me to, the word "swindling" I believe in a few cases prior to 1927 the action, 919 or lack of action, taken by some trade unions in the confusion of the funds was tantamount to swindling.
§ Mr. IsaacsWe will leave it at that. We think we know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks he meant on that matter. I do not think we will trouble him to name the cases. We know that the things exist in his imagination only, and we will leave it at that.
§ Colonel RopnerThe right hon. Gentleman should read the Report of the Registrar-General.
§ Mr. IsaacsWe have read it.
§ Colonel RopnerThe right hon. Gentleman should read it again.
§ Mr. IsaacsWe have read it and that is why we say it exists in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's imagination. Another thing the hon. and gallant Gentleman said was that men and women came to him in distress because they were being victimised or intimidated in connection with contracting in and contracting out. He said that Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me if I am perfectly plain and blunt and say I just do not believe it? There was no evidence of any complaint or grievance about contracting in or contracting out.
§ Mr. HoggOn a point of Order, Major Milner. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when my hon. and gallant Friend said that this was his own experience—that certain persons had come to him in distress—he did not believe it. I am asking for information of what the right hon. Gentleman said. It seems to me that this raises a direct point of Order because the right hon. Gentleman is casting reflections upon my hon. and gallant Friend.
§ The ChairmanI do not know what the right hon. Gentleman did in fact mean. If he intended any personal insinuations against the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) in that connection, he should certainly withdraw it.
§ Mr. IsaacsI am making no reflection against the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in spite of the fact that he thinks we are swindling. I make no reflection against his character or reputation, but I do not believe that kind of story about intimida- 920 tion. That is the main point. We have known about these cases that come along and which have been encouraged and taken up by newspapers, and I want to make it clear that, so far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman's personal reputation and veracity are concerned I make no challenge against him—although I still have a little doubt about his reference to swindling.
My final point is that, until 1927, there appeared to be no complaint that contracting-out was being abused. As one of my hon. Friends said in the discussion on an earlier Clause, this Clause would probably never have been brought before the House at all and would never have come to the notice of the country if it had not been that there was an attempt to take some action against the trade unions because of the strike of 1926, and because this was passed as a punitive Measure by people who thought that the opportunity was there to give the trade unions a lesson, and who said, "We will stop their tricks." By this means, it was hoped that both the funds and the political activities of the trade unions would be so much restricted that their future possibilities for pursuing their work would be hampered. It must be borne in mind that political funds of the trade unions are not applied mainly or solely to political action in the political sense. They are used for helping members all over the country to serve on local authorities. Where they lose time from work, and therefore lose wages, and to give services to the State, these funds are provided to enable them to give such services and to travel from place to place. Our political funds are used for the service of the State as much as anything else, and anybody who desires to contribute to them is placed under no hardship.
§ Lord John Hope (Midlothian and Peebles, Northern)Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me to what he attributes the rather astonishing decline in contributions as a result of the 1927 Act, and, if that is attributed, as the Attorney-General said, to inertia; would the right hon. Gentleman comment on the question which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) raised as to the right to capitalise that?
§ Mr. IsaacsThe hon. Member has asked a question, and I will give the answer in my own way. If we had pursued the 921 form of victimisation which has been alleged, we should have had hundred, more members paving contributions
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston upon Thames)The right hon. Gentleman, in his concluding speculations on the origin of this Section, departed from his earlier attempts to brush the whole matter aside when he asked, speaking of contracting in and out, what was the difference, or words to that effect. I would remind him that it hardly lies in his mouth, as representing the Government, to take that line, since, after all, the Government themselves took the initiative and are now taking up the time of the Committee with a discussion of this matter, and, if that be so, it would surely call for some explanation of why it had been necessary in these days to make a change of this sort. But, in pursuit of more solid argument, we must turn to the speech of the Attorney-General.
In the Second Reading Debate the learned Attorney-General, in words which have been quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and which I will not quote again—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.'']—I am pleased to notice that the learned Attorney-General's words appear to be as insufferably tedious to hon. Members opposite, as they are to hon. Members on this side. The Attorney-General put his case on the basis that the minority must give way to the majority. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that that is a fair paraphrase of his observations; if not, I am afraid I shall have to trouble the Committee by reading them. That argument is based on the question of fact, whether the people who do not desire to pay contributions to a political fund are a minority or not, and I have here certain figures that may assist the Committee. Of course, they may not be accurate, but, as they were given only a fortnight ago by the Minister of Labour in reply to a Question by one of my hon. Friends, I have no doubt that he will accept them According to these figures, during 1944, the membership of registered unions with political funds was 5,579,057, and, of these, no more than 2,397,111 contributed to the political fund. It is apparent that that is a minority, for, that is a matter of arithmetical calculation of 922 which I am perfectly certain all hon. Members are capable
That being so, how does the argument of the learned Attorney-General stand, that the majority must take precedence of the minority, because the essence of his case is that it is a majority. Reference was made by the Minister of Labour to the fact that this political fund would not, of course, exist if these unions had not decided by ballot to carry political funds. That sounds a very democratic and very proper thing, but there is one very pertinent consideration. When, in most cases, was this ballot taken? In the case of most of the major unions it was taken, I understand, very shortly after the 1913 Act, and, therefore, those members of the unions who voted in that ballot are now, mostly, no longer at work; some of them are, I believe, members of another place, and others have, in another way, retired from the industrial scene. It is all very well, for the Attorney-General to fortify himself behind the democratic argument of the majority over the minority, based on ballots 30 years old and upon figures given by the Minister of Labour, which show that only a minority, under the present dispensation, contribute to the political fund.
Therefore, I make this suggestion. If the Minister of Labour is sincere, as I am sure he is, in his suggestion that this is a democratic procedure, will he, here and now, give an undertaking to the Committee that he will introduce legislation to make a new ballot necessary in all cases before, a political levy is levied? If that were done, it would make it manifest which was the minority and which the majority. If the Government are not prepared to give that undertaking, it will indicate to a good many of my hon. Friends that they have some doubt in their minds, which is the majority and which the minority in this matter. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is faced with a dilemma. Either this change will increase the funds of the unions or it will not. If it will not, why go to the trouble of changing what has been the law of the land for 20 years? [An HON.. MEMBER: "Why did the Conservatives change it? "]'' If the hon. Member will restrain his exuberanee for a moment, I will tell him why the party of which I am a Member changed it. But, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will pause. for a moment on the uncomfortable eminence of 923 the horns of his dilemma, he will discover this difficulty. Either it will not increase their funds, and, in that case, why should he do it?; or it will increase the funds, in which case it means that the Labour Party will be receiving subscriptions from members of the population who are so apathetic as to their political plans, that they are not prepared, once in a lifetime, to sign on. It is surely a shocking humiliation for any party to say that it is prepared to finance itself from people so apathetic and so unenthusiastic for its policy that they are not prepared, once in a lifetime, to sign one piece of paper. If it is the desire of hon. Members opposite to rear their financial fortunes on such a foundation, then let us be told that, and let us be told quite frankly what is the financial support of the Labour Party.
8.30 p.m.
An hon. Member was good enough to inquire why the Conservative Party had altered the previous law. As has been said again and again in this Debate—and I should not have returned to it had it not been for the appetite for information of the hon. Member opposite who interjected—it was because over the years people were, for one reason or another, good or bad, afraid to go to the offices of their union and contract out. [HON. MEMBERS: Rubbish."] Hon. Members are courteous enough to interject "Rubbish." I can only tell them that not more than a few days ago, I had the honour to make a public speech within the constituency represented by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) and I had the added honour to address a meeting from a platform on which, I understand, she has often stood. I was told by a number of trade unionists that they had been subjected to every form of pressure when, earlier, they had exercised their right of contracting out. [HoN. MEMBERS:" Rubbish."] It is useless for hon. Members opposite to shout "Rubbish" and to deny the evidence given before a big public meeting, by members of a union which I am prepared to name, if they so desire.
§ Mr. BlackburnWill the hon. Gentleman gave the name of one such individual and the union?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI am certainly not going to name an individual, but as the 924 hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was also good enough to ask for the name of the union, I will say that it is the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The reason—
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe reason why it was thought right to make this alteration in 1927, was to prevent that state of affairs happening.
§ Mr. NallyIf the hon. Gentleman would care to supply me, not with the names of the people concerned, but with the circumstances and the branches to which they belong, I should be delighted—I give my personal promise—to give full publicity to the case that he has made. All I want are the names of the branches, the circumstances in which pressure was applied, together with the nature of the pressure applied, and the names of the trade union officers who applied it.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the hon. Gentleman thinks it is right and proper to expose men who have once been subjected to intimidation to a repetition of such pressure, I can only say that I do not share his view. If he cares to visit Liverpool, he will find a substantial number of people who attended that meeting, and that those things were stated by a number of people who had nothing whatever to do with the organisers of that meeting.
§ Mr. H. Hynd (Hackney, Central)If that was stated at a public meeting—
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI cannot give way in the middle of every sentence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me two consecutive sentences.
§ Mr. HyndI was only suggesting that if that was stated at a public meeting, there should be no hesitation on the part of the hon. Gentleman in giving the facts asked for.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI do not propose to give the information for good reasons which the hon. Gentleman's perception, after a moment's reflection, will no doubt appreciate. It was obvious that those members of my audience gave such particulars as they thought it safe in the circumstances to give, and I do not regard it as any part of my duty to,indulge in inquisitorial practices. As the matter 925 seems to be of some interest to hon. Members opposite, I can only suggest that, if they desire to pursue their inquiry in the Exchange Division of Liverpool, they are perfectly free to do so.
On the question of intimidation, the point is surely borne out by the striking figures which have been given of the change between 1926 and 1928. There is one set of figures which I cannot forbear to give, and which relates to a union of considerable geographical distribution throughout the country—the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants. In 1926, 97 per cent, of the members of that union contributed to the political fund; in 1928 that percentage fell to 18 per cent. It will be interesting, as this Debate continues, to see if any hon Member opposite cares to offer an explanation of a change of that nature in the number of political contributors during a period of two years. I suggest that figures like that show that there must have been some degree of coercion and pressure.
I understand from the Press that the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council were engaged last Friday, among other things, in the congenial task of allocating the increased income which it was anticipated the repeal of this Section
§ would bring in. Against the sombre background of national and international chaos, it is surely a trifle squalid and a trifle indecent for the highest officers of the Crown to be sitting with their accomplices, discussing the precise allocation of funds won, at the best, from apathetic indifference, and, at the worst, from cowed acquiescence. I say to hon. Members opposite that there are many hon. Members on this side of the. Committee and many people in the country outside who feel most bitterly that the repeal of this Section is a great breach with the decencies and the humanities of public life. I further say to hon. Members opposite that there are hon. Members on this side who—it may be a short time, it may be a long time—one day will see to it that this Section is re-enacted, word for word, and line by line, and that those who have prospered from these indecent gains shall he compelled to disgorge them to the last penny.
§ Mr. Whiteleyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 301; Noes, 128.
929| Division No. 115.] | AYES | [8.40p.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Brown, George (Belper) | Donovan, T. |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Brown, T. J. (Irce) | Douglas, F. C. R. |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Bruce, Maj. D. W. T | Driberg, T. E. N. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Burden, T. W | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) |
| Allighan, Garry | Burke, W. A. | Dumpleton, C W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Butler, H. W. (Hackney. S.) | Durbin, E F.M. |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Callaghan, James | Dye, S |
| Attewell, H. C. | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Ede, Rt Hon. J C. |
| Austin, H. L. | Chamberlain, R. A. | Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Awbery, S. S. | Champion, A. J. | Edwards, John (Blackburn) |
| Ayles, W. H. | Chetwynd, Capt. G R | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B | Clitherow, Dr. R. | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Cobb, F. A. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) |
| Baird, Capt J | Cocks, F. S. | Evans, S N. (Wednesbury) |
| Balfour, A. | Coldrick, W. | Farthing, W. J. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J | Collide, P. | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) |
| Barstow, P. G | Collindridge, F. | Foster, W. (Wigan) |
| Barton, C. | Collins, V. J. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Battley, J. R | Colman, Miss G. M | Gaitskell, H. T. N. |
| Bechervaise, A. E | Comyns, Dr. L. | Gibbins, J. |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W) | Gibson, C. W |
| Benson, G | Corlett, Dr. J. | Gilzean, A. |
| Berry, H. | Corvedale, Viscount | Goodrich, H. E. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Cove, W. G. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut A | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Bing, Capt. G. H. C. | Daggar, G. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) |
| Binns, J. | Daines, P. | Grierson, E. |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Boardman, H. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Gunter, Capt. R. J. |
| Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W) | Guy, W. H. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Deer, G. | Hale, Leslie |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Diamond, J. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Dodds, N. N | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Hardman, D R | Morrison Rt Hon H (Lewisham, E) | Sorensen, R W |
| Hardy, E A | Moyle, A. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Harrison, J | Nally, W. | Sparks, J. A |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Naylor, T. E. | Stamford, W |
| Haworth, J. | Neal, H. (Claycross) | Steele, T. |
| Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Nichol, Mrs, M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Stephen, C. |
| Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Srewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Hewitson, Capt M | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Strachey, J. |
| Hicks, G | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hobson, C R | Noel-Buxton, Lady | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Holman P | O'Brien, T. | Stubbs, A. E |
| Holmes, H E (Hemsworth) | Oldfield, W. H | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| House, G | Oliver, G. H. | Swingler, Capt S |
| Hoy, J. | Orbach, M. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Hudson, J H (Ealing, W.) | Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilferd (Wentworth) | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Paling, Will T. (Dwesbury) | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Hughes, Lt H D (W'lverh'pton, W) | Palmer, A M F | Thomas, Ivor (Wrekin) |
| Hynd, H (Hackney, C) | Pargiter, G. A. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Parker, J. | Thomas, John R (Dover) |
| Irving, | Parkin, Fit Lieut B T | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Issacs. Rt. Hon G. A. | Paton, Mrs F (Rushclifle) | Thomson Rt Hn G R (Ed'b'gh, E) |
| Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Thorneycroft, H |
| Jones, A. C. (Shipely) | Pearson, A. | Thurtle, E |
| Jones, D T (Hartlepools) | Peart, Capt T F | Tiffany, S |
| Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) | Perrins, W. | Timmons, J |
| Keenan, W. | Piratin, P | Tittertngton M. F |
| Kenyon,C. | Popplewell, E. | Tolley,L. |
| Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E | Porter, E. (Warrington) | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G |
| Kinley, J. | Porter, G. (Leeds) | Turner-Samules, M |
| Kirby, B V | Pritt D N | Usborne, Henry |
| Lavers, S. | Pursey, Cmdr. H | Viant, S. P. |
| Lawson, Rt Hon J J | Ranger, J | Walkden, E |
| Lee, Miss J (Cannock) | Rankin, J | Walker, G. H. |
| Leslie, J. R | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Wallace H W (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Levy, B W | Reeves, J | Warbey, W. N |
| Lewis, A. W. J (upton) | Reid T (Swindon) | Weitzman, D |
| Lindgren, G S. | Rhodes, H | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Lipton, Lt. Col. M | Richards, R | Wells, W T (Walsall) |
| Longden, F. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M | Whitely, Rt Hon. W. |
| Lyne, A. W. | Robens, A. | Wigg, Col. G E. |
| McAdam, W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvorshire) | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B. |
| McAllister, G. | Roberts, J. J. (Berwick) | Wilkes, Maj. L |
| McEntee, V. La T | Rogers, G. H. R. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Sargood, R. | Willey, F T (sunderland) |
| Mack, J. D. | Scollan, T. | Willey, O G (Cleveland) |
| McKay, J (Wallsend) | Scott-Elliot, W. | Williams D. J. (Neath) |
| Mackay, R W G (Hull, N W) | Segal, Dr. S. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Maclean, N. (Govan) | Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. | Williams, Rt Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| McLeavy, F. | Sharp, Lt. Col. G. M. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Macpherson, T. (Romford) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widness) | Williamson, T |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) | Wills, E. |
| Manning, C. (Camberwell,N.) | Shinwell, Rt.Hon. E. | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
| Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Shurmer, P. | Wilmot, Rt. Hon |
| Marquand H. A. | Silverman. J. (Erdington) | Wilson. J. H. |
| Marshall, F (Brightside) | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Wise, Major F. J |
| Mathers, G. | Simmons, C. J. | Woodburn, A |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Skeffington, A. M. | Woods, G S |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Skeffington-Lodge, T C | Yates, V. F |
| Mikardo, Ian | Skinnard, F. W. | Younger, Hon Kenneth |
| Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) | Zilliacus, K |
| Monslow, W. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) | |
| Montague. F. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham. S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Moody, A. S. | Smith, H. N. (Normanton) | Mr. R. J. Taylor and Captain Blenkinsop |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Solley L J. | |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew Cmdr P G | Clarke, col. R. S. | Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond) |
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G | Eccles, D. M. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Conant, Maj. R. J. E | Gage, Lt.-Col. C |
| Astor, Hon. M | Cooper-Key, E. M. | Gates, Maj. E. E. |
| Baxter, A. B. | Corbett, Lieut.- Col. U. (Ludlow) | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Bossom, A. C | crookshanK, Capt, Rt. hon. H. F. C | Grimston, R V. |
| Bowen, R. | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E | Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) |
| Bower, N. | Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. | Harvey, Air- Comdre. A. V |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Cuthbert, W. N. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Darling, Sir W Y. | Herbert, Sir A. P. |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G | Davies. Clement (Montgomery) | Hogg, Hon. Q. |
| Brown, W. J. (Rugby) | De la Bère, R. | Hollis, M. C. |
| Buchan-Hepburn P. G. T. | Digby, Maj. S. W | Hope, Lord J. |
| Butcher, H W | Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Howard. Hon. A. |
| Carson, E. | Drayson Capt. G B | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) |
| Challen, C. | Drewe, C. | Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J |
| Hurd, A. | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Morrison. Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Enj. Univ'sities) |
| Jarvis, Sir J. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J |
| Jeffreys, General Sir G. | Nicholson, C. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Keeling, E. H. | Noble, Comdr. A H. P | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Kendall, W. D. | Nutting, Anthony | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Kerr, Sir J. Graham | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.) |
| Lambert, Hon. G. | Osborne, C. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. |
| Langford-Holt, J. | Pickthorn, K. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Pitman, I. J. | Turton, R. H. |
| Legse-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Prescott, Stanley | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Linstead, H. N. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. | Ward, Hon. G. R |
| Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Raikes, H. V. | Wheatley, Colonel M. J. |
| Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Ramsay, Maj. S. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Rayner, Brig. R. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) | Williak, Rt. Hon. H U. |
| Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Ropner, Col. L. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Macmiiian, Rt. Hon. Harold | Ross, Sir R | Young, Sir A. S. L- (Partick) |
| Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) | Savory, Prof. D. L. | |
| Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Marples, A. E. | Smithers, Sir W. | Lt.-Col. Byers and Mr. Emrys Roberts. |
| Meller, Sir J. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
930§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 305.
933| Division No. 116. | AYES. | [8.50 p.m |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hollis, M. C. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Aitkon, Hon. Max. | Hope, Lord J. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Howard, Hon. A. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry). |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) | Prescott, Stanley |
| Baxter, A. B. | Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Bossom, A. C | Hurd, A. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Bowen, R. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bower, N. | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Roid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Keeling, E. H. | Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) |
| Brown, W. J. (Rugby) | Kendall, W. D | Ropner, Col. L |
| Bushan-Hepburn, P. G. T | Kerr, Sir J. Graham | Ross, Sir R. |
| Butcher, H. W. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Savory, Prof. D. L. |
| Carson, E. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. |
| Challen, C. | Langford-Holt, J. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Cliften-Brown, Lt.-Col. G | Legge-Bourke Maj. E. A. H. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Linstead, H. N. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Studholme, H G. |
| Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Sutoliffe, H. |
| Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne) |
| Cuthbert, W N. | MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. | Taylor, Vioe-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight) | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Mackoson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
| De la. Bere, R. | Maolay, Hon. J. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Digby, Major S. W. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Turlon, R. H. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Draysan, Capt. G. B. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Drewe, C. | Marples, A. E. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) | Mellor, Sir J. | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Eccles, D. M. | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Gates, Maj. E. E. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Williams, Lt.-Comdr. Gerald (T'nbr'ge) |
| Glossop, C. W. H | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Nicholson, G. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Harris, H. Wilson | Nutting, Anthony | Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick) |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Orr-Ewing, I L. | |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Osborne, C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Hebert, Sir A. P. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Lt.-Col. Byers and Mr. Emrys Roberts. |
| Hogg Hen. Q | Pickthorn, K | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Anderson. A. (Mothowell) |
| Adams, W, T. (Hammersmith, South) | Allighan, Garry | Attewell, H.C |
| Adamson. Mrs J L. | Alpass, J. H. | Austin, H U. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Gilzean, A. | Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.) |
| Aylest W. H. | Goodrich, H.E | Nicholls, H. R. (Startford) |
| Ayrten Gould, Mrs. B. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) |
| Blacon, Miss A. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) |
| Baird, Capt. J | Greenwood, A. W. J. (.Heywood) | Noel-Buxton, Lady |
| Balfour, A. | Grierson, E. | Oldfield, W. H. |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Oldfield, W. H. |
| Barstow, P. G | Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Barton, C. | Gunter, Capt R J | Orbach, M. |
| Battley, J. R. | Guy, W. H | Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (wentworth) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Belcher, J. W. | Hale, Leslie | Palmer A. M. F |
| Belienger, F. J | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Benson, G. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Parker, J |
| Berry, H | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Parkin, Flt.-Lieutr. B. T. |
| Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Hardman, D. R. | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rusholiffe) |
| Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) | Hardy, E. A. | Patson, J. (Norwich) |
| Bing, Capt. G. H. C | Harrison, J | Pearson, A. |
| Binns, J. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Peart, Capt. T. F. |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Haworth, J. | Perrins, W. |
| Boardman, H. | Henderson, A. (Kingwinsford) | Piratin, P. |
| Bottomley, A. G | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Platts-Mills, J. F. F. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Popplewell, E. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Hicks, G. | Porter E (Warrington) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Hobson, C. R. | Porter, G. (Leeds) |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Holman, P. | Pritt, D. N. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Holmes, H. E (Humsworth) | Protoctor, W. T |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | House, G | Pursey, Cmdr. H |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Hoy, J. | Ranger, J |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W). | Rankin, J. |
| Brucs, Major D. W. T. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Rees-Williams, D. R. |
| Burden, T. W. | Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) | Reeves, J. |
| Burke, W. A. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Reid, T. (Swindon) |
| Butler, H. W (Hackney, S) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Rhodes, H. |
| Callaghan, James | Irving, W. J. | Richards, R. |
| Castle, Mrs. B A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M |
| Chamberlain, R. A | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Robens, A. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Roberts, Gornowy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Chater D | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G R | Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Rogers, G. H. R |
| Clitherow, Dr. R. | Keenan, W. | Sargood R. |
| Cobb, F. A | Kenyon, C | Scollan, T. |
| Cocks, F. S | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ld. E | Scott- Elliot, W. |
| Coldrick, W | Kinley, J. | Segal, Dr. S. |
| Collick, P | Kirby, B V | Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A |
| Collindridge, F. | Lang, G | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Collins, V. J | Lavers, S. | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Colman, Miss G. M | Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N.W) | Leslie, J R | Shurmer, P. |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Levy, B. W | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Corvedale, Viscount | Lewis, A. W. J (Upton) | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Cove, W. G. | Lindgren, G. S. | Simmons, C. J |
| Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A | Lipton, Lt.-Col M | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Daggar, G. | Longden F. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C |
| Daines, P. | Lyne, A. W. | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | McAdam, W. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | McAllister, G. | Smith, H. N. (Nettingham, S.) |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | McEntee, V. La T | Smith, H. N. (Nettingham, S.) |
| Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) | McGhes H. G | Smith, T (Normanton) |
| Davies, R J (Westhoughton) | Mack, J. D | Snowm Capt. J. W. |
| Deer, G | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Solley, L. J. |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Diamond, J. | Maclean, N. (Govan) | Soskice, Maj. Sir F |
| Dodds, N. N | McLeavy, F. | Sparks, J. A |
| Donovan, T. | Macpherson, T. (Romford) | Stamford, W |
| Douglas, F. C. R | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Steele, T |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) | Stephen, C. |
| Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping). | Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Dumpleton, C. W | Marquand, H. A. | Strachery, J. |
| Durbin, E. F. M. | Marshall, F. (Brightside) | Strauss G. R |
| Dye, S. | Mathers, G. | Stross, Dr. B |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Mayhew, C. P. | Stubbs, A. E. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Middtston, Mrs. L | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Mikardo. Ian | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Monslow, W. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Montague, F | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Moody, A. S. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Farthing, W. J. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Thomas, I O. (Wrekin) |
| Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Foster, W. (Wigan) | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R- (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Moyle, A | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Gaitskell, H. T. N. | Nally, W. | Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| Gibbins, J. | Naylor. T. E. | Thurtle,E |
| Gibson, C. W. | Neal, H. (Claycross) | Tiffany, S |
| Timmons, J. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) | Willis, E. |
| Titterington, M. F. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Tolley, L. | Whileley, Rt. Hon. W. | Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J |
| Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G | Wigg, Colonel G. E. | Wilson, J. H. |
| Turner-Samuels, M. | Wilcock, Group-Capl. C. A. B | Wise, Major F. J |
| Ungoed-Thomas, L. | Wilkes, Maj. L | Woodburn, A |
| Usborne, Henry | Wilkins, W. A. | Woods, G. S. |
| Viant, S. P. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) | Yates, V. F. |
| Walkden, E. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Walker, G. H. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) | Zilliacus, K. |
| Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) | |
| Warbey, W. N. | Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Weitzman, D. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) | Mr. R. J. Taylor and Captain Blenkinsop. |
| Wells, P L. (Faversham) | Williamson, T |
§ 9 p.m.
§ Mr. Quentin HoggI beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert With the exception of section five."
I always got rather confused by the numbers of these Sections, and lest hon. Members should share my difficulty, the Committee will perhaps forgive me if I remind them that Section 5 of the Act of 1927 is that Section which deals with the position of civil servants. It is a somewhat long Section, and therefore perhaps the Committee will spare me the task of reading it in toto. On the Second Reading of the 1927 Act, the third principle which was enunciated as underlying that Section was that the State should be entitled to the undivided allegiance of established civil servants, and it is upon that principle that I think the discussion should proceed this evening. It is perhaps a slightly more difficult Section to discuss on this Bill, because I do not think that it lends itself to the black or white, one side or the other, controversial method which has quite rightly figured in the discussion of the other Sections. I should have thought that the position of civil servants as members of trade unions was essentially a difficult one, and not to be discussed in too strong or too controversial terms.
Undoubtedly, in the main, the State can command the undivided allegiance of its full-time civil servants, and nothing but harm would be done by suggesting, on either side of the Committee, that the contrary is the case. Nevertheless, I should imagine that the civil servants themselves would welcome the principle which I have enunciated as underlying Section 5 of the Act. We live in a State which, fortunately, has Parliamentary institutions, universal suffrage and regular or, at any rate, periodical elections, and perhaps not the least important factor in the success of those institutions is the existence of a loyal and impartial Civil Service prepared to carry out whatever 934 policy the lawful Executive of the time may determine. It would be a disastrous thing if ever it came to be supposed that such was not the case at present, or that such ought not to be the case in future, and it is precisely because I think the repeal of Section 5 of the Act of 1927 might have that effect that I ask the Government to accept this Amendment.
The difficulty arises, of course, because of the equivocal position of the Trades Union Congress. No one would object it the Civil Service unions were closely associated with other unions, which have solely a non-political purpose. The situation never arose which may arise, and which I should welcome, that the Trades Union Congress came to regard itself as so important a feature in our national life that it was regarded as impartial in the matter of party politics. If that situation ever presented itself as it might in the future, then, I think, the difficulty would not arise. But we must deal with things as they are, and things as they are involve the proposition that the Trades Union Congress has associated itself, warp and woof, with one of the great parties in the State. People may doubt the wisdom of that policy, but no one would dispute that that is entirely a matter for themselves to decide, and not one on which any legislation would be tolerable. But having once accepted that position, that the Trades Union Congress is itself one of the mainstays of one of the great political parties in the State, committed at every stage to controversial legislation, to controversial affiliations covering the whole field of public affairs, surely it is not fanciful to say that that policy, that position, would inevitably involve serious dangers were the unions of the Civil Service to be allowed to associate with the body which has chosen to take up that viewpoint.I should have thought that on the broad principle of the thing, there could be no doubt that it was wrong that such an affiliation should take place.
935 Having said that, I think I should make one important qualification. I think that in 1927 the definition of "civil servant" was in people's minds somewhat different from what it is today. Today, great numbers of public servants are gradually being enrolled of a class and character who were, undoubtedly, exceptional 20 years ago. The great increase in the activities of the State, for better or worse, has undoubtedly resulted in the enrolment in the service of the State of a large number of ordinary operatives, who, for one reason and another, would not have been regarded as, and would not have been, public servants 20 years ago. Of course, there were always the ordnance factories, and always the postmen and people of that kind.
Quite clearly, in the last 20 years, whichever Party has been in power, whether they were following the principle and philosophy of private enterprise, or, as now, the opposite philosophy, the number of ordinary operatives in the service of the State has materially increased. I do not think, whatever the language of Section 5 of the Trades Dispute Act, 1927, may be, that it was originally intended to cover operatives of that kind. I gain a certain amount of confirmation in that view from the language which the then Attorney-General used during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that the principle underlying the Section was that the State was entitled to the undivided allegiance of established civil servants. I deemed him to have meant that the ordinary operative, who was not in any normal sense a civil servant, ought not to be hit at by that Section. I hope, when the Attorney-General comes to reply—if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair before the Closure is moved by the Chief Whip—that he will nat base any arguments on that line. It would be perfectly possible for the Attorney-General, or some other responsible Minister, to move amending legislation if he felt that the ordinary operatives, who may be dealt with under this Section, ought not to be restricted in their affiliations. If that had been the case, Members on this side of the Committee do not object to amending legislation of a controversial character being introduced. Of course, it would be a matter of discussion and of difference of opinion, but it is a very different propo- 936 sition to introduce repealing legislation of the kind that is before the Committee.
It is true that in the principle which I have enunciated, quoting the words of the responsible Minister of the time, the words "established civil servants" can be given a narrow and pedantic meaning, which I thought I detected the Attorney-General seeking to give them in his speech last month. It is true that a number of those concerned with the permanent and responsible machinery of government can be divided, strictly speaking, into those established and those who are not. I think that the Attorney-General would be entitled to learn from those on this side of the Committee how we view that distinction, having regard to the language of Section 5. I do not think any really important question of principle need delay us here. It is quite obvious, as matters have developed since 1927, and it may be that they had already developed to some extent in that direction at that time, that the large number of people who, in ordinary language, are clearly established civil servants do not come within the Treasury's definition. The number seems to me to be immaterial, and the question really is whether those who have the duty and the privilege of carrying out Government policy, on behalf of whatever Government happens to be in power, ought safely to be allowed to affiliate to the Trades Union Congress. I hope that we shall not trouble ourselves with the pedantic question of whether ordnance works should be included, because freely concede that they should not.
§ Mr. CallaghanI wonder if the hon. Gentleman would agree to assist, by saying how far down he draws the line of responsibility, because that is of importance. He excludes ordnance workers. How far, up or down, does he draw the line?
§ Mr. HoggIf we were entering into a complete redrafting of Section z we might have an interesting discussion on that question, but I might get into trouble with you, Major Milner, and, therefore, I do not propose to go into it. If the Government had taken the responsibility of amending the Section, I should have been happy to discuss the terms of that amending Section, and I might have had the pleasure of agreeing with the Government about what they proposed. But what we are concerned with is not amendment, as 937 the hon. Gentleman seems to think, but total repeal, and I am trying to direct the attention of the Committee to the issues involved in the principle of total repeal to which, at the moment, the Government stand committed. If it should happen to be the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman seeing the folly of his ways gave an undertaking, in certain terms, that amending legislation would be introduced, it might be possible to go into greater detail, but I do not think that it is necessary to do so at the present stage, because the Government have committed themselves to the principle of total repeal.
This is not merely an academic question. In his Second Reading speech, with which I will not weary the Committee, the learned Attorney-General seemed to suggest that there never had been any evil at which this Section of the Act of 1927 was aimed. He had obviously not in mind the reasons which, in fact—be they good or bad—had animated those who promoted the Bill. I hope that the Comtnittee will forgive me if I remind them of what those reasons were. I feel sure I -hall not be exceeding my filial duty if I read a short extract from my father's speech on the Second Reading, because I think it is germane to the Amendment which we have in mind. This is what he said:
The reason why this particular Clause was thought to he necessary is to be found in the history of last May. At the outbreak of the general strike. 12 monthsago there were seven Civil Service organisations which were affiliated to the Trade Union Congress. They had a total membership of a little under 130,000 out of a total of 300,000 members of the Civil Service.What a change to the present situation when there were until recently nearly 1,000,000 members of the Civil Service.On the 4th of May one of those Associations issued a circular to its members describing, for the information of the members, what had happened at a conference held on the previous Saturday. It appears from this circular that at that conference the general secretaries of all affiliated trade unions were called upon to answer publicly two questions —by publicly I mean openly, in the presence of the conference. The questions were whether the particular association was prepared to place its powers in the hands of the General Council of the Trade Union Congress as regards (1) calling a strike of its members, and (2) financial aid. The circular goes on to state that the three largest of the Civil Service Associations represented at that conference returned an affirmative reply to both these questions.938 That is to say, an affirmative reply to both questions—whether they would be prepared to place their powers in the hands of the General Council (1) by calling a strike of their members, and (2) by financial aid. Then there was a short interruption which seems to have figured in that Debate somewhat as it is figuring in this. The passage goes an as follows:
§
The number of members is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is the number of members of the associations which are alleged to have given an affirmative reply and they amount to over 100,000. I was going on to say that it is fair to say that one, at least, of the associations concerned has subsequently stated that it did not agree to hand over its powers, or any powers, to call out its members on strike, but only to give financial aid. What is quite certain is this, first of all that these associations were actively supporting with grants from their funds the conduct of the strike: secondly,
§
—and I attach some importance to this—
the members of the headquarters staff of at least one of the largest was actively engaged in working at the plans of this strike and carrying it out, that other members of the union were actively engaged on the local district councils carrying on the strike, and that one at least, and I think more, of these associations sent out circulars to their members in which their members were warned not to volunteer for any duties, were instructed that if any invitation were made to them to volunteer they should consult their branch secretaries and the branch secretaries were instructed that they were to act in accordance with the instructions of the Trade Union Congress. They were warned not to accept any statements which were broadcast, but to look for their information only to the ' British Worker.' The situation which was developed in May last was that organisations of Civil Servants, whose undivided allegiance the State has a right to claim, were, in fact, through their officials, actively engaged in fomenting a rebellion against the State. That, in the judgment of the Government, is an intolerable situation in which to find the established Civil Servant. We think that we have a right to expect that, whatever party is in power, the State should have the loyal and undivided service of those who have entered the Civil Service. They expect and receive from the State great benefits. They have a certainty of tenure, they have pensions at the end of their service, and they have through the Whitley Council and through the Arbitration Agreements unrivalled opportunities of submitting their grievances." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1927; Vol. 205, c. 1,331–2.]
§ It seems to me, in the face of that testimony, which I think has never been seriously disputed, that it is idle to pretend there was no substance in fact, for the introduction of this Section in 1927. I know that it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to conceive that the general 939 strike may possibly have been wrong, but I ask them instead to consider the point of principle involved. Is it not vital when one lives in a democracy to ensure that, whatever party the people may choose to put in power, however foolish and misguided the people may be, should have at their command the power to form an Executive, with sufficient means in the shape of a Civil Service to carry out the policy upon which that Executive is determined, subject only to the control of Parliament, which occasionally seems to irk some of our modern Governments? The Civil Service has no right to put a check on the Executive. It is not there for that purpose. It has no business to withdraw its members from the machinery of government, however violently democratic the Government proposes to be. The Civil Service has no right to work out plans for the purpose of trying to bring o pressure to bear by extra-constitutional means, and it has no business to ally itself with political parties for the purpose of carrying out a political policy, inconsistent with that of the Government of the day.
§ One appreciates that as individuals the members of the Civil Service must retain all the rights of individuals in regard to voting, and expressing their views subject only to conscience. What is at stake is not a man's right as an individual; it is the right of these associations, controlled as many of them are by an organised minority, to ally themselves with something which is, admittedly, rightly or wrongly, closely allied and indeed interwoven with one of the great parties of the State, instead of being at the beck and call of every democratic Government of this country, whatever its politics. I do not believe that in their more reflective moments the Labour Party really desire to be the only party in the State, or really desire that they should never at times have periods of opposition in which they have to submit to the will of a majority which is not always disposed to follow policies of which they approve. I like to think that the wiser heads in the Government—and there may be some, although their counsels are not always immediately apparent—would like to plan occasionally for periods in which they might not be in power. It seems to me of the very essence of democracy that we should 940 have at least two parties—apparently we have only two in the Chamber at the moment—these two parties, of course, interspersed with a distinguished and quite undependable little minority of Independents; and that each of the parties should have the opportunity of attaining power for periods of office in order to put their policies into effect, and the right, when they do attain power, to command exactly the same degree of devotion, and not that half-allegiance which has been described as having existed in 1927, from those who draw the pay of the State and should wear its livery without any qualifications.
§ Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)I am glad that on the first occasion on which I address the Committee I do so on this subject. I have experienced the working of this Section, and I have also been able to exercise my responsibilities and privileges as an ordinary citizen for the greater period of my life working outside the Civil Service. For many years it has been my privilege to take part in the local and national political life of this country. Since I was a young man, my approach to social affairs has been based upon the realisation that every man and woman who wanted to be a fit and proper citizen of his or her city or country must take some initial responsibility in regard to the type of Government that was to govern the city or country. To that end I have devoted the whole of my spare time to politics from the point of view of the party with which I am connected. I was able to give my energy and time to that matter precisely as I desired, because my time was my own.
Owing to exigencies of war, however, I found myself in the position of a civil servant and when I became a civil servant, I very soon realised the difference in the application of the laws and regulations to me as an ordinary individual and as a civil servant. When I became a member of that august body of civil servants, I found that, on 25th July, 1927, there had been an Order in Council providing that no person serving in the Civil Service in a salaried capacity, whether permanent or temporary, should issue an address to electors or in any other manner publicly announce himself as a candidate for election to Parliament; and officers of the Ministry were not allowed to become candidates for county councils or borough councils without making 941 application to their superior. I found that I had put myself into circumstances entirely contrary to those that I desired. Not only was my connection with the political world curtailed, but my actions as an ordinary individual desirous of taking part in social activities were curtailed. The regulations which denied me the right to associate in political activities in the city and the country also denied me the right, if I were so disposed, to become a member of any voluntary force of the Crown without the permission of the authorities above me. They also denied me the right to become a voluntary member of the constabulary, if I was so inclined. The whole circumstances, from my point of view, as one who had just entered the Civil Service, were such as to place restrictions upon me.
9.30 p.m.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said about civil servants and his suggestions about the terrible sort of people they are. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there were circumstances in which the Civil Service might have done something but did not do it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When Section 5 of the Act was before the House, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said:
I would like to point out that of 220,000 established civil servants, I think only 40 were guilty of actually participating in the strike. Therefore, we are not dealing with evils which have yet come into the field of practical politics to any great extent.…We have been told what occurred a year ago. There is no doubt whatever that the fact that the Civil Service associations were affiliated to the Trades Union Congress was used by the leaders to influence the Civil Service. It was used in the sense of saying, ' We must be mindful of our obligations towards the Trades Union Congress.' It is quite true that they were not actually called upon to strike—I wish to call this point to the attention of the hon. Member for Oxford—and it is petty clear that if they had been, that call would have been refused by an overwhelming majority. [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 30th May, 1927; Vol. 207, c. 70.]The point I wish to emphasise is that, for the purpose of maintaining this obnoxious Section, which all the Civil Service organisations are fighting and have been fighting since it was put on the Statute Book, hon. Members opposite are, as the Attorney-General said, setting up ninepins simply in order to knock them down.942 The hon. Member for Oxford has suggested what might happen under certain circumstances with regard to civil servants. The only point I would make is that when the testing time came for the organisation of the Civil Service the Civil Service recognised their responsibilities as far as the country was concerned. I am certain that they will at all times meet all the responsibilities placed upon their shoulders because of their work. All I wish to say in addition to that is that while the civil servants are prepared to shoulder all those responsibilities, they should not have taken from them all the privileges to which they are entitled as citizens. While this Section, if maintained, will in no way ensure -that they will better meet those responsibilities, it will return to them their privileges and rights.
Mr. W. J: BrownI have one or two controversial things to say, but before I strike any note of controversy at all—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."]—I will suggest that we take all the interruptions to my speech before we start. Now my first duty is to congratulate very heartily, on behalf of Members on all sides of the Committee, the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. Porter) on his maiden speech. All of us who have gone through that ordeal know how great an ordeal it is, and I think that probably I should be echoing the sentiments of every hon. Member in the Committee if I said that in a certain sense every speech one makes in this House is a maiden speech from the point of view of nervous strain. Rut the first is really the worst of all, and therefore I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having acquitted himself worthily and well. We shall hope to hear from him many times in the future.
There ought now to be an appropriate pause for interruptions. If no interruptions are forthcoming I shall assume that I am free to make a contribution to this discussion. I like to state my position clearly; I am opposed to this Amendment. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), referring to parties in this House, said that there were also one or two independents who could not be depended upon. There is a very great deal of truth in that. It is the pride of the independent that he cannot be depended upon to follow folly 943 on either side. And it is the paradox of this House that folly on one side is invariably matched by counter-folly on the other. Anybody who wishes to avoid the follies of both sides is bound almost automatically to be an independent. Moreover, I wish to say that from the point of view of government in general it would be a great advantage if fewer Members of this House could be depended upon to support their Governments, right or wrong, but did so only when they were right, and chastised them, for their own good, when they were wrong.
There are three issues in the present Amendment. There is the issue of the general strike, the strike of the past, and the possible general strike of the future. There is the issue of a free contact between Civil Service organisations and outside industrial bodies. And, thirdly, there is the issue of the affiliation of Civil Service organisations to outside political bodies. These really are the three elements comprised in the scope of this Amendment. So far as the general strike is concerned, the strike of the past, which I myself think is probably the last general strike we shall see in Britain—at least I fervently hope so on all grounds—it is possible to give two answers to the hon. Member for Oxford. The first is that the Civil Service played a very restrained and loyal part throughout the general strike
That is one answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), whom I had to see after the general strike in relation to Section 5 and other Sections of the 1927 Act, has himself told the House of Commons that out of 220,000 established civil servants —and he might have added another 90,000 unestablished civil servants because at that time there were over 312,000 civil servants—out of 312,000 civil servants, many of whom felt extremely strongly on the issue of the general strike, there were actually only 40 who stopped work. Those 40 did not stop work upon the instructions of their organisations, but on their own personal initiative and responsibility. I did not think that we were so bad in 1926 that it needed, for the community's good, a special Section in the Act of 1927, to ensure that we should not be vicious thereafter.
944 But I do not seek to make that point. I rest my case on wider and more fundamental grounds. If ever, within a country, things are allowed to come to a pass where 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 people stop work, a situation has been reached in which there is only one proper thing to do. That is to hang the Government. I mean by that that any Government so blind, so stupid, so unimaginative and unforeseeing, and so incompetent, as to allow matters to reach the stage where millions of people stop work, have put themselves right outside the pale of appealing to constitutional duties and obligations.
§ Mr. LeslieThat happened in 1926.
§ Mr. BrownThank you very much. I thought I was making that point. The whole of the Mental attitude which conceives that grave historical crises and vast movements of millions of men can be dealt with on the basis of drafting tidy little Clauses in a Bill is utterly remote from reality and has no relation with life. That is the pettifogging view of a petty lawyer confronted with an emergency of the causes of which he knows nothing. I do not think that we shall ever see another general strike in England but, if it conies again, whatever little bits of ink have been put on bits of paper will be just as irrelevant then as they were last time. I hope that no Member of this Committee will be influenced on the Amendment by what happened in the last general strike, or by the possibilities of strikes in the future.
§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)The hon. Member was raising the point of hanging the Government.
§ Mr. BrownIt is true I have dealt only with the Government. But my vision is wider. In certain circumstances not even back Benchers might escape.
I come to the second of the three points, affiliation of Civil Service organisations with outside industrial bodies. I think that we have to be realists here. This idea that the hon. Member for Oxford puts up that a man's sole loyalty is to the State is a profound religious heresy.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Member must not misrepresent what I say. I thought I had made it plain, and if not, I hasten 945 to say now that what I was talking about was not the man's individual rights but his position in relation to the Government as a member of an association.
§ Mr. BrownI must clear up this deeper heresy. One of the worst heresies is worship of the State. That is neither a man's first loyalty, nor his last. His first loyalty is to his own perception of truth, his second to his family, his third is to the State, and, after that, you can arrange the others in appropriate order. I have not said a word about party loyalty. If you start with the presumption that a man's first loyalty is to the State, you will not understand a single one of the great movements of mankind. Great movements are motivated by men's perception of some truth on which they are prepared to gamble their lives. Loyalty to the State is not the first loyalty. I grant that civil servants have a loyalty to the State, hut they have some loyalty to their position as wage earners, and their relationship with their wage-earner friends outside.
Who laid down the doctrine, on which the Treasury has operated all my lifetime, that the basis of civil servants' conditions should be the conditions given outside the Civil Service for workers engaged upon comparable work? Who laid down that conception? The Socialist Party? Not at all. I noticed a great improvement in this matter the other day. I heard the Foreign Secretary proclaiming the doctrine that the State should be a model employer. I am going to wait to see that implemented before I get at all enthusiastic, but, as a declaration of principle, it is vastly better than we have had from the Treasury during my lifetime. Their principle has been "Your conditions must be regulated by the conditions of people outside. But you must not talk to them, or meet them in some trade union congress. You must be divorced from them." What utter unreality that is. I do not know how many arbitration cases I have taken part in. But I have handled so many that letters were addressed to me at the Industrial Court of Civil Servants by the general public under the misapprehension that it was my permanent residence. I cannot remember a single arbitration case ever fought about the wages of State servants where I have not had "outside conditions" cast up as a reason why the particular claim that I was advancing at the 946 moment should not be conceded by the Arbitration Court.
I assert that it is an abuse of the State's position as employer to tell its employees that they must not be associated with the very workmen whose conditions regulate their own. There can be no case whatever against the Civil Service organisations being free to affiliate to the T.U.C. if they want to. They may not want to do so. They may regard the T.U.C. as a reactionary force. They may think that, so far from it being the spearhead of the working-class movement in Britain, it is a brake on the movement. But that is for them to decide, and not for their employers to decide for them. That is the simple issue.
On the third issue, affiliation with outside political bodies, I speak with greater reserve. I used to take a strong view in favour of affiliating Civil Service organisations with the Labour Party. I am less sure of that after 30 years' experience of the public service. But what I am clear about is that, here again, the decision is for them to make; not for the employer to make on their behalf or to impose upon them. If they decide to affiliate with the Labour Party, then all past experience goes to show that they are perfectly capable of distinguishing between their duty to the State as civil servants, and their private inclinations as citizens of a free country. I see not the slightest case for carrying this Amendment, which would perpetuate the continuance of Section 5 of the 1927 Act. There are other Sections about which I take a different view. For instance, I am utterly opposed to the repeal of Section 6, which we shall be discussing later on. On the whole I have taken the view that contracting in was less liable to abuse than contracting out. This happens to be my view, which I express with my customary frankness on these matters. About Section 5, however, I am utterly clear that it ought never to have been put into the Act of 1927, and tonight, with the grace of God, we shall wipe it out.
§ Mr. L. J. Edwards (Blackburn)I would not detain the Committee tonight but for the fact that in the last few years I have taken some part in the negotiations which the Civil Service unions have been having with the Government. I am the general secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union, which was affiliated 947 to the Trades Union Congress and to the Labour Party early in this century, and a union which has been deprived, since 1927, of all organic contacts with outside organisations. I want to deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). In the course of his remarks he quoted from the speech of his learned father, and described what had happened at the time of the general strike. In reply, I want to quote some words which were said to the Civil Service leaders when they waited on the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, in 1943. On that occasion—and I was there—the then Prime Minister said:
And I must say that you have this always to say, that the Civil Service unions did not take a part improperly in that General Strike; they sympathised, they did what they were entitled to, but they did not take part. They kept to their service to the State and carried on.That, it seems to me, is the effective answer to the case which the hon. Member put up on that very point. There had been no trouble, there were in the Civil Service Treasury regulations which protected the State in every way that was desirable, and yet, following 1926, this legislation was introduced which penalised the Civil Service unions. Those of us who speak for the Civil Service unions say that Section 5 constituted narrow class legislation of the worst kind, and that there was really no excuse whatever for the Section being introduced at allThe hon. Member for Oxford made great play with the question of the definition of an established civil servant, and, if I understood him aright, he said that he would be prepared to see a very much narrower definition than the one that has in fact been operating. What has been the effect of the 1927 Act? It has been not merely to limit the activities of the higher civil servants who are engaged in policy making, and can always be relied upon to impose upon themselves a self-denying ordinance; it had the effect of bringing under the ban the humblest servants of the State. It even meant in actual practice, if not in law, that the unestablished civil servant was brought in as well. In my own union there is a membership of 50,000 men, of whom something of the order of 20,000 are unestablished. If I were able to divide the union into two parts, I could have a union 948 of unestablished persons able freely to co-operate, work with, and affiliate to outside bodies, leaving the rest not so free. In fact it means that the humblest cleaner in the service of the State is denied freedom of association, because she must give undivided allegiance to the State. Is the hon. Gentleman saying to the cleaner, the porter, postman, telephone fitter, and all such people who—in many cases because of purely historical accidents—are working in a Government Department that they are to be denied one of the most important human rights—the right of association?
§ Mr. HoggSince the hon. Member appeals to me, may I say I do not know whether he was present when I delivered the first part of my argument. I should have thought that my view was perfectly plain from that.
§ Mr. EdwardsI was here during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member and was somewhat confused as to what precisely he was getting at. He talked at one time as though the intention of the people who framed the 1927 Act was that it should not include the kind of people of whom I have been talking. But it is clear if one looks at the definition of an unestablished civil servant in the Act itself, that it must include such persons.
§ Mr. HoggI thought I had made it plain, but if I did not, allow me to make it plain now. I was not arguing the case whether or not a precise definition was a perfect one, but we were discussing whether total repeal was the correct remedy for any defects that might arise.
§ Mr. EdwardsI am much obliged for that explanation. I will go on to argue why we must have total repeal. I think on this side of the Committee I shall find agreement when I say that the part played in the last few years by the people who now constitute the Opposition, was not a very creditable part in these proceedings. The Civil Service unions have been trying carefully and patiently for a long time to get a limited let up, to get freedom to work with the Trades Union Congress. Let me say, in passing, that I could not do my work as a trade union official, unless I had contacts with the Trades Union Congress. I could not do work on behalf of telecommunication engineers, unless I had day-to-day contacts with electricians and engineers of other kinds. We have 949 been trying to get a limited revision of the law. When in 1943, in highly critical circumstances, some of us waited on the then Prime Minister to see whether we could not reach an accommodation with him, he led us to suppose that he would see whether something could not be done. He promised to consult his Cabinet colleagues about it. We had secured the interview with him on about two weeks' notice. Finally, in March, 1945, he informed the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress that he had ascertained that the overwhelming mass of Conservatives would not support the Amendment that we desired
10.0 p.m.
When, on the occasion to which I have referred, we asked the then Prime Minister if he would consider the question of industrial affiliation, his first reply was that this was a matter which he felt should be put before the electorate at a General Election. Later, when he wrote to Sir Walter Citrine, in the letter I have already quoted, he said:
In view, therefore, of the approaching General Election, it would seem to me that this question is one which should be submitted to the electorate, and that their verdict will govern its treatment in the new Parliament.If this was the view of the Leader of the Conservative Party, I would like to know why we now have so much fuss, when the electorate of the country have returned their verdict. Finally, I would say, do not think that all Civil Service unions want to affiliate to the Trades Union Congress, do not think that all Civil Service unions want to affiliate to the Labour Party, but do know, for certain, that they are all united in insisting that they shall be free to do so if they wish.
§ Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)I intervene as the representative of a constituency which, I believe, contains as many civil servants as, if not more than, any other constituency in this country, as a result of evacuation during the war. I would reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. L. J. Edwards), by saying that the repeal of Section 5 was indeed a real issue during the General Election, and the result was not, in my case, the result which the hon. Member would have liked. This question of the out-and-out repeal of this Section was mentioned at every meeting which I had, and was one which prompted a delegation, instigated, I think, by the hon. Member for Rugby 950 (Mr. Brown), and by certain things he was doing, to come to me very early in the Election campaign, with the remark that they represented 10,000 constituents, and what did I think about it? My answer was very similar to that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg), when he addressed the Committee in a remarkable and restrained speech—[Laughter]. It was not remarkable because it was restrained, but for other reasons. Any affiliation of Civil Service unions with other unions for political purposes should not be contemplated by this Committee or by the country. I agree with others who have spoken on this side of the Committee, and I think on the other side too, that we should look into the possibility of there being affiliation for industrial purposes. That is difficult—
§ Mr. CallaghanThe Amendment does not say that.
§ Brigadier LowIt does not say that for the good reason which has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. We are discussing tonight whether or not we shall repeal Section 5, and I am trying to explain to the Committee that in my opinion we should not repeal it, because in the interests of the country, the Civil Service should not be bound up with politics in any way. I do not wish to detain the Committee on that point; but I have another point to raise which has not been brought up so far. Not only does it matter what civil servants think, but it matters also what the people of this country think civil servants are thinking and doing. That is an important distinction. The success or failure of our Constitution depends to a large extent upon the confidence of the country in the integrity of the Civil Service. It is because the country has had that confidence for so long, that we have such pride in our Constitution and the way in which it works today. I believe for that reason we should not give civil servants the power to decide whether or not they shall affiliate with, for example, the Trades Union Congress. If they abuse their freedom, and affiliate with political unions and associations, that in my opinion will affect the confidence of the rest of the country in the carrying on of government. That is too great a risk to run. For that reason I have dared to intervene in this most important Debate and it was that stand that I, for my part, and I believe many of my 951 hon. Friends, took in the Election and will always take in opposing the repeal of this Section.
§ Mr. William Williams (Heston and Isleworth)As I rise to address the House of Commons for the first time, my mind goes back to an occasion about 24 years ago when I was almost catapulted into a boxing ring in the old Liverpool Stadium to face an irate and excited crowd of about 2,000 people on an unpopular resolution. My mind vividly recalls that on that occasion, if I had any ambition in life, it was to become the horizontal champion of Liverpool. I do not feel much steadier on my pins at the moment. I, therefore, hope that I shall receive from the Committee the generous consideration which I notice is given to people in the position which I now occupy. I feel very much as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary felt when he was speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill. I have been waiting for nearly 20 years to see this great day, in so far as members of Civil Service organisations are concerned. I am not ashamed to admit here to-night —there is no danger attached to doing so at the present time—that I have striven and struggled, with thousands of other civil servants, not only in my own constituency of Heston and Isleworth but throughout the length and breadth of this land, to recover the rights of civil servants so that they shall have the privileges and responsibilities of true citizens of this country.
I would assure right hon. and hon. Members of this Committee that this iniquitous and spiteful Act of 1927 was resented most bitterly by the whole Civil Service when it was first introduced. That resentment has not abated one iota with the passing of the years. It is not limited to members of those organisations which were affiliated to the T.U.C. or to the Labour Party before the passing of the Act, but practically every member of the other organisations feels with us that the time has come when this unjustifiable and spiteful action on the part of the Government of the day, should be removed, once and for all, from the Statutes of this country. As the learned Attorney-General said during the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, not a shadow of justification is brought for this iniquitous Act. Mr. J. R. Clynes, 952 writing in the "Manchester Guardian" a short time ago, said that, of all sections in this country who should not have been penalised in connection with 1926, the Civil Service should be least of all, because they had done nothing to warrant such a thing. The associations with which I have been connected—the National Staff Side of the Whitley Committee, the Departmental Committee on the Post Office side and the Union of Post Office Workers, representing 150,000 workers in the Post Office—have been agitating all these years and have appealed to successive Governments, but in vain. They have not had their freedom.
Some of us expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) might have conceded the claim of the Civil Service within the last year or two. We thought that the close contacts he had with the leaders of our great movement, the magnificent tribute which he had paid in respect of the unsurpassed efforts of the trade unions, including the Civil Service unions, during the war, and the friendly conversations which he had had with the leaders of the Civil Service unions, which have been referred to already—we thought that all these, in the aggregate, would have influenced his mind. As a matter of fact, he did say, in one of his letters to the leader of one of the organisations:
There is no objection at all to your having the most intimate relations with the T.U.C. in a friendly way.I do not know exactly what he meant by that, unless he wants us to be friends so long as we keep far away from each other, never visit each other and never have any consultations with each other, but we thought that, when he used the word "friendly," he did not mean that, at any rate. Whatever he meant, he has not carried out what we expected he would. When I come to think of it, it seems strange to me that this old warrior, who has defied all the combined might of Hitlers and Mussolinis, all the adversities of two world wars, has ingloriously capitulated to a small band of the 1922 Committee of the Tory Party. What is more tragic still is that, when all of us have thought that the 1922 Committee, apart from one or two honourable exceptions in this House, had disappeared from the face of political life, we find their duplicates on the opposite side at the present time. I thought that the younger and more pro- 953 gressive element on the other side would have seen the signs of the times, but, unfortunately, we do not see anything at all in this Amendment to show that they have a clear vision or conception.10.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Oxford said that we can do so many things, particularly in regard to postmen and cleaners and others. May I ask him why his Party have not done them? They had all the opportunities since 1926. It seems to me that the hon. Member for oxford did not even know what an established civil servant is. He thought there were senior grades right up to the top. An "established Civil servant" is what it says—a man with pension rights and a permanent civil servant. A postman is a permanent, established civil servant. Therefore; if we are so concerned about the postmen and those other grades, why has it not been changed between 1927 and the present day? In any case, even if it had been very difficult, with just those bare majorities which our opponents had between 1927 and 1946, I would have thought that there would have been an Amendment tonight, or at least a suggestion, such as was give by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). He saw the light all right and I thought, quite frankly, that when he was suggesting that there ought to be some sort of industrial evolution he was giving a guide for tonight's Debate. I was surprised when I found out that the Amendment was nothing more nor less than an attempt to go back to the old days from 1927 onwards. The civil servants are not prepared to go back to the position of 1926, and they are satisfied that this Government are not going to place them there.
A good deal of what I had intended to say has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown).He has had at least two bites at the cherry, and has said it more effectively and humorously than I could have clone. However, if the Committee do not mind, I will make one or two other references. Much has been said about the need for loyalty and undivided allegiance on the part of civil servants, and quite rightly so. As one who has served for nearly 30 years in the Post Office, I fully subscribe to the need for undivided allegiance and loyalty. I am satisfied that that loyalty has never been in dispute. Seeing 954 that I know the Post Office better than any other Government Department, I could quote numerous instances where successive Postmasters-General, mostly from the Liberal and Conservative Administrations, have paid glowing tributes to the devotion and loyalty of Post Office people, and not only after the 1927 Act. There are two of them on the Opposition Front Bench tonight, and I feel quite sure that both of them would say that they honestly meant what they said when they paid that tribute to Post Office workers when vacating their offices. They are the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury and Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) [HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] I have never yet found the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asleep. I would not like to "kid myself" that he is, because we have had a good deal of negotiation, indirectly, in the past.
The point I wish to make is that, not only after the passing of the 1927 Act, but in the years preceding 1926, we received the same tributes. For instance, Lord Brentford, when he was Sir William Joynson-Hicks, wrote that never in all his industrial experience had he had anything like the loyalty and the devotion which he had from the Post Office people. He said, also, that the British Post Office is the best in the world, and it will not do any of us any harm to remember that remark. When it gets back to the prewar standard, it will be the best Post Office in the world after this war, too. I would also refer to a tribute during the general strike in 1926 from Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, who thanked the Post Office and the Service for its wonderful loyalty in the most trying time in its history. However, within a few months we came under Clause 5, and that is how we were treated for our loyalty and devotion.
My hon. Friends who, like myself, have come from the Service, have referred to one or two reasons why Civil Service Associations desire to be affiliated to the larger movements outside. The first reason is historical, or, perhaps sentimental. It may surprise hon. Members even on this side of the Committee when I tell them that there were certain Post Office associations which were affiliated to the Trades Union Congress as far back as 1893, before the 955 bulk of hon. Members present were born. They were almost foundation members of the Trades Union Congress. Some of the Civil Service organisations were affiliated to the Parliamentary Representative Committee in the beginning of this century, before the Labour Party was ever thought of. Therefore, from the historical point of view, we were part and parcel of the movement. We were responsible for its origin, its growth and development, and it was no light matter, so far as we were concerned, that we were not allowed to carry on. But there is a more practical reason, which is the one given by the hon. Member for Rugby. We are living in a world in which we have to earn our bread and butter in a fairly competitive market. I have had a shock since I came to this House, to discover how concerned are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite regarding the standards of remuneration in the Civil Service and the Post Office. I never thought, from my long experience in the past, that there had been anything like the concern now expressed, and I have begun to wonder whether all our tremendous efforts to get another is a week for postmen were just figments of my imagination. It is marvellous what coming out of office does to some people. However, I understand I must not be controversial.
I suppose during the last 20 or 30 years there has been nothing so outstanding as the growth of the trade unions in this country; nobody will deny that. I do not think there is anything more unique and important than the voluntary power that has been given to the Trades Union Congress. There is nothing more important from the point of view of the ordinary working man, whether he be in the Civil Service or outside, than the fact that the conditions are, in the main, governed as between the employers and the Trades Union Congress as an advisory body to all these other unions. The queer part about it is that while we on the Staff Side of the Civil Service are denied our contacts with our vis-à-vis on the industrial side and the trade unions, the Treasury has always maintained its rights to have it own contacts and its own understanding in regard to the general standards of remuneration as between the various classes. We believe that what is good enough for the Treasury is good enough for the Union of Post Office Workers, the 956 Post Office Engineering Union and the other Civil Service unions. I feel that there is no need for me to emphasise the obvious.
I would make one point in regard to affiliation, to the Postal Telegraph and Telephone International. That has not been mentioned in the Debate at all. Not only were we affiliated before 1927 to the T.U.C. and to the Parliamentary Labour Party, but we were also affiliated to the Postal Telegraph and Telephone International. In fact, we were perhaps more responsible than any other union—apart possibly from the German unions—in building up that organisation, and in its development. It would be interesting to trace the disintegration of that international organisation. When Mussolini came to power—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh dear."] Perhaps I have been too long, but I have also been too long at this game to be put off by any remarks like that. When Mussolini came into power, the first thing he did was to withdraw the Italian delegation from the Postal Telegraph and Telephone International. The Union of Post Office Workers, to which I have the honour to belong, protested to the British Government on the ground of democracy. Little did my union think that, within two or three years of the Italian delegation walking out from the Postal Telegraph and Telephone International, into the wilderness and into isolation, the British delegation would be following suit, because of the Trade Disputes Act. The next step was that Hitler withdrew the German delegation from the Postal Telegraph and Telephone International. Hon and right hon. Members opposite may try to' explain away the Trade Disputes Act in any way they like, but, according to Mussolini, they are simply following suit, except that they are doing it better than he 'did. That was his testimony and his report upon the Trade Disputes Act.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) more or less gave us to understand that whatever we do here tonight may be upset and changed in the course of time. I do not know whether it is a habit for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow hon. Members behind to make important statements on their behalf, but he made a very important statement, one of the most challenging statements in the Debate. I would say this to him, and to any other hon. 957 Members who feel as he does. that repression and persecution have never yet held down any movement which has its roots in the hearts and souls of the people. They failed to do so in the early Christian Church; they failed to do so in the Protestant Reformation; they failed to do so in the treachery of the "blue books." which tried to kill the Welsh language. of which I am so fond and so proud. They have always failed. They failed to break the spirit of the Civil Service. too. Despite the fact that the Government have got hold of the organic and the physical. the spirit of our people has remained true to the companionship and the comradeship of the great working-class movement.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Glossop (Howdenshire)I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. Williams) on his maiden speech. I am sure the Committee have been charmed by his personality. his vigour and by his determination to express his own point of view. We have in this House heard so many congratulations on maiden speeches. that I hope the hon. Member will believe my sincerity when I say that my late father was educated in his constituency, and I can therefore quite truthfully say that. from time to time. some very excellent, very intelligent and very eminent persons come out of Isleworth.
I had not intended to speak tonight. but I was particularly interested in another maiden speech, that of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Porter). While I do not entirely agree with what he said, I was particularly interested because he, like myself, was, owing to the exigencies of the war, a temporary civil servant. One does expect that there should be some continuity of thought amongst the great political parties and it is on this point that I should like to speak for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill. said there was something that' he had been waiting for some nineteen years to get off his chest. With all clue respect to the right hon. Gentleman I also have had something on my ches—not quite so broad as his. at the present time—which I have been wanting to get rid of for the last six years. I have here Volume 360 of HANSARD. of 1st May. 1940. I shall not weary the Committee by quoting from it at length. but there is one passage in which the present Minister of 958 Agriculture. the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) asked the Parliamentary 'Secretary to the Ministry of Food
'' whether he will state the duties of the area meat officer for South Yorkshire. the name of the officer and the conditions of the appointment.The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food replied that Mr. C. W. H. Glossop had been appointed area meat and livestock officer for the North Eastern area. In a supplementary question the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked:Am I not right in assuming that this Mr. Glossop is the ex-Member for Penistone… and is the Minister satisfied that he has sufficient particular experience for this post." [OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st May. I940; Vol. 360. C. 712.]The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley asked a further question—
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)I would ask the hon. Member how he can associate what he is now saying with the Amendment under discussion.
§ Mr. GlossopI started my speech by suggesting that one ought to expect some consistency in the policy of the Labour Party. I tried to prove my case not merely by quoting my own point of view but by quoting from HANSARD. when Members now on the opposite side of the Committee were in Opposition and now. because they are Members of the Government—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Amendment under discussion.
§ Mr. GlossopI beg your pardon. Mr. Beaumont. for getting out of Order but I am trying to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I am not objecting to the Civil Service being kept out of politics. but I do believe that it is the duty of the Civil Service to support any Government and to carry out the duties and the laws that that Government make. What I am objecting to is that one Party should express one point of view about the Civil Service at one time. and that the very same people are now trying to suggest that members of the Civil Service may associate themselves with trade unions and ultimately with one political party. May I conclude by quoting a supplementary question put on the same occa- 959 sion by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lime house (Mr. Attlee) the present Prime Minister? He asked whether the non. Gentleman would specify "what administrative experience this gentleman had had." I may say that, as a temporary civil servant, my status rose by leaps and bounds, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman asked this supplementary question. I could now go back among my old ex-civil servant friends. and remind them that no less a person than the present Prime Minister—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI still cannot understand how the hon. Member is addressing his remarks to the Amendment.
§ Mr. GlossopI apologise for getting out of Order. All I can say is that I am amazed—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Member says that he is amazed that he was out of Order. It would seem to me that the whole of his speech was out of Order.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIn one of the more notable of that very notable series of broadcasts which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition addressed to the electorate at the time of the General Election. he said. and perhaps it is not irrelevant to remember it. when referring to the possibility of the Socialist Party being returned:
How would it affect the ordinary wage earner? Let me tell you. It will rob him of his personal freedom to an extent unknown. Under our present democratic system. the wage earner can, of course, appeal to his trade union, and also the sacred rights of collective bargaining, largely promoted in bygone days by the Conservative Party. Then. there is Parliament, while it is free, to which the behaviour of all employers of labour. either jointly or in indivdival cases, can be approached and discussed in the full light of day. But none of these things would be possible in a Socialist State. where the central executive authority cannot allow itself to be challenged or defeated at any time. I declare to you that the freedom of the wage earner to choose or change his employment. or to use collective bargaining by all means, including the right to strike, runs absolutely counter to the Socialist doctrine and theory.That is what hon. Members opposite said to induce the electorate to vote for them, but the electorate were not greatly impressed, It is perhaps right, when the intervention of the State in the industrial and economic life of the country is in- 960 creasing. and is likely to continue to increase. that we should make it abundantly clear. that it is not part of the Government's policy. that those who serve the State in the Civil Service should be less free than others in the industrial affiliations which they may choose to make. If it were suggested here that civil servants should be forbidden to hold political views except those of the Tory Party. and if it were suggested that they should not be allowed to belong to political parties other than the Primrose League. one could understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite. But. as I understand it. it is not suggested that civil servants should not be free to hold political views or free to belong. as members. to whatever political parties they choose to select. As it is. there never has been any justification for doubting the loyalty of the Civil Service. or questioning that that loyalty will be given solely and singly to the State. The hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) called in aid the ipse dixit of his distinguished father. made 20 years ago. I make no comment on it. but the House may think that the more recent pronouncements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)—pronouncements which have been referred to in other speeches—were perhaps rather better informed. and made in rather less controversial circumstances. I am not going to repeat them. but admirable maiden speeches have been made by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Porter) and the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. William Williams)—speeches in which attention was called to the fact that quite recently. in considering this matter of the attitude of the Civil Service taken at the time of the general strike. the right hon. Gentleman the then Prime Minister said that the Civil Service had done nothing improper and only that which they were entitled to do.Neither in this country nor. so far as I know. in the history of any other country has it been found that the way to secure loyalty and allegiance is by imposing penal restrictions upon individual liberty. All that this miserable little Section of this miserable little Act has done is. in fact. to cause a degree of political indignation and political agitation among the members of the Civil Service which would never have arisen had this Act not been -passed in 1927. This Government resolutely declines 961 to perpetuate that source of grievance. Members of the Civil Service of established or unestablished posts must be free. if they choose. to join the trade union which they may select. That trade union. in its turn. must be free to affiliate with any outside body with which it chooses to have association. whether it be the Primrose League or the T.U.C. We have no reason whatever to doubt. or to question. the continued and undivided loyalty of the Civil Service. and we are unable to accept this Amendment.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)I rise mainly to ask certain questions of the Government. I understood from the hon. and learned Attorney General. and from some of the other speakers on the other side of the Committee. that what they desired was exactly the same freedom for the Civil Service unions as was enjoyed by other trade unions. I understand that that is their contention. If so. it may be relevant to point out that they will not get that automatically by the repeal of this Section. The Civil Service at this moment is not governed by this Section but by the Civil Service regulations. What this Section does is to make obligatory on the Government to include certain things in the Civil Service regulations. Once this Section has been repealed. the Government will be able to put anything they like into the Civil Service regulations. Once hon. Member. in an interesting maiden speech a short time ago. obviously assumed that what the Government were going to do was to alter the Civil Service regulations so that the Civil Service unions would be free to do anything that other unions can do. I ask the Government is that the case? Do they intend that the Civil Service regulations shall contain provisions enabling the Civil Service unions to call a strike? I think we are entitled. through the learned Attorney-General or some other Minister. to an answer to that.
Let me point out the dilemma in which the Government find themselves. If they say they do intend that the Civil Service unions shall have strike rules and the right to strike. then the position becomes clear. It is something which the Committee and the country have a right to know. On the other hand. if they say they do not intend that. then they are 962 introducing a distinction between the Civil Service unions and other trade unions. I do not blame them for that. but if that is their doctrine why say that this Section casts such a stigma on the Civil Service? The learned Attorney General talked about the wide discontent in the Civil Service. He seems to assume that he is the only member or that his Party is the only Party which has friendships and contacts with civil servants. Possibly as a result of a book which I wrote. I have a considerable postbag from. amongst others. members of the Civil Service. I know that many of them are not demanding the repeal of the Section at all. I believe that hon. Members opposite know that. too. I believe they know that the Civil Service is very greatly divided on this and that a great many civil servants think that this repeal is not in the interests of the Civil Service. I hope before we proceed to a Division on this that some speaker for the Government will tell us what the Government propose to put in the Civil Service regulations when they are free to put in any thing they like as the result of the repeal of this Section.
The hon. Member to whose maiden speech I have referred asked why we did not put down something about industrial affiliation in this Amendment. I personally do not believe in the possibility of purely industrial affiliation to a political body. I agree that the point may be argued. but the short answer why no such Amendment was put down was that it would be wholly out of order and. therefore. would not have been selected by the Chair. I do not see why the Government tonight. before a Division is taken. should not tell us what use they propose to make of the power which the repeal of this Section will give them. Do they or do they not propose to allow the Civil Service unions to have strike rules? Do they or do they not propose to permit the Civil Service unions to affiliate to the Communist Party? [An HON. MEMBER: "Or to the Tory Party."] I seek a reply to those questions. and I sit down in order that the Government may give it through the Attorney-General or some other Minister.
§ Mr. Whiteleyrose, in his place, and claimed to move. " That the Question be now put."
§ Question put. "That the now put."
964§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 123.
965| Division No. 117.] | AYES. | [10.49 p.m. |
| Adams. Richard (Balham) | Dye. S. | McAllister. G. |
| Adams. W. T. (Hammersmith. South) | Ede. Rt. Hon. J. C | McGhee. H. G |
| Adamson. Mrs. J. L. | Edelman. M. | Mack. J. D. |
| Allen. A. C. (Bosworth) | Edwards. A. (Middlesbrough. E.) | McKay. J. (Wallsend) |
| Alpass. J. H. | Edwards. John (Blackburn) | Mackay. R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.) |
| Anderson. A. (Motherwell) | Edwards. N. (Caerphilly) | Maclean. N. (Govan) |
| Attewell. H. C. | Edwards. W. J. (Whitechapel) | McLeavy. F |
| Attlee. Rt. Hon. C R. | Evans. E. (Lowestoft) | Macpherson. T. (Romford) |
| Austin. H. L. | Evans. S. N. (Wednesbury) | Mallalieu. J. P. W. |
| Awbery. S. S. | Farthing. W. J. | Manning. C. (Camberwell. N.) |
| Ayles. W. H. | Fletcher. E. G. M. (Islington. E.) | Manning. Mrs. L. (Epping) |
| Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B. | Foster. W. (Wigan) | Marquand. H. A. |
| Bacon. Miss A. | Freeman. Maj. J. (Watford) | Marshall. F. (Brightside) |
| Baird. Capt. J. | Freeman. Peter (Newport) | Mathers. G. |
| Balfour. A. | Gaitskell. H. T. N | Mayhew. C. P. |
| Barnes. Rt. Hon. A. J. | Ganley. Mrs. C. S. | Middleton. Mrs. L. |
| Barstow. P. G. | Gibbins. J. | Mitchison. Maj. G. R. |
| Barton. C. | Gibson. C. W. | Monslow. W |
| Battley. J. R. | Gilzean. A. | Montague. F |
| Bechervaise. A. E. | Goodrich. H. E. | Moody. A. S. |
| Belcher. J. W. | Gordon-Walker. P. C. | Morgan. Dr. H. B. |
| Bellenger. F. J. | Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A. | Morris. P. (Swansea. W.) |
| Benson. G. | Greenwood. A. W. J. (Heywood) | Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.) |
| Berry. H. | Grenfell. D. R. | Moyle. A. |
| Bevan. Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Grierson E. | Nally. W. |
| Bevin. Rt. Hon. E (Wandsworlh. C.) | Griffiths. D. (Rother Valley) | Neal. H. (Claycross) |
| Binns. J. | Griffiths. Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) | Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.) |
| Blackburn. A. R. | Guest. Dr. L. Haden | Nicholls. H. R. (Stratford) |
| Blenkinsop. Capt. A. | Gunter. Capt. R. J. | Noel-Baker. Capt. F. E. (Brentford) |
| Boardman. H. | Guy. W. H. | Noel-Baker. Rt Hon. P. J. (Derby) |
| Bottomley. A. G. | Haire. Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) | Noel-Buxton. Lady |
| Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Hale. Leslie | O'Brien. T. |
| Bowles. F. G. (Nuneaton) | Hall. Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare) | Oldfield. W. H. |
| Braddock. Mrs E. M. (L'p'l. Exch'ge) | Hall. W. G. (Colne Valley) | Oliver. G. H. |
| Braddock. T. (Mitcham) | Hamilton. Lieut.-Col. R. | Orbach. M. |
| Brook. D. (Halifax) | Hannan. W. (Maryhill) | Paling. Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Brooks. T. J. (Rothwell) | Hardman. D. R. | Palmer. A. M. F. |
| Brown. George (Belper) | Hardy.E. A. | Pargiter. G. A. |
| Brown. T. J. (Ince) | Harrison. J. | Parker. J. |
| Bruce. Major D. W. T. | Hastings. Dr. Somerville | Parkin. Flt.-Lieut. B. T. |
| Burden. T. W. | Haworth. J. | Paton. Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) |
| Burke. W. A. | Henderson. A. (Kingswinford) | Paton. J. (Norwich) |
| Butler. H. W. (Hackney. S.) | Henderson. J. (Ardwick) | Peart. Capt. T. F. |
| Callaghan. James | Hewitson. Capt. M. | Perrins. W. |
| Castle. Mrs. B. A. | Hicks. G. | Platts-Mills. J. F F. |
| Chamberlain. R. A. | Hobson. C. R | Popplewell. E. |
| Champion. A. J. | Holman. P. | Porter. E. (Warrington) |
| Chater. D. | Holmes. H. E. (Hemsworth) | Porter. G. (Leeds) |
| Chetwynd. Capt. G. R | Horabin. T. L. | Pritt. D. N. |
| Clitherow. Dr. R. | House. G. | Proctor. W. T |
| Cluse. W. S. | Hoy. J. | Pursey. Cmdr. H. |
| Cobb. F. A. | Hudson. J. H. (Ealing. W.) | Ranger. J. |
| Cocks. F. S. | Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen. N.) | Rankin. J |
| Coldrick. W. | Hughes. Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.) | Rees-Williams. D. R. |
| Collick. P. | Hynd. H. (Hackney. C.) | Reeves. J. |
| Collindridge. F. | Hynd. J. B. (Attercliffe) | Reid. T. (Swindon) |
| Collins. V. J. | Irving. W. J. | Rhodes. H. |
| Colman. Miss G. M. | Isaacs. Rt. Hon G. A | Richards. R. |
| Comyns. Dr. L. | Janner. B. | Ridealgh. Mrs. M. |
| Corbet. Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well. N.W.) | Jeger. G. (Winchester) | Robens. A. |
| Corlett. Dr. J. | Jeger. Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S.E.) | Roberts. Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Corvedale. Viscount | Jones. D. T (Hartlepools) | Robertson. J. J. (Berwick) |
| Cove. W. G. | Jones. Asterley (Hitchin) | Rogers. G. H R. |
| Crawley. Fit.-Lieut. A. | Keenan. W. | Sargood. R. |
| Daggar. G. | Kendall. W. D. | Scollan. T. |
| Daines. P. | Kenyon. C | Scott-Elliot. W. |
| Dalton. Rt. Hon. H. | Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr E | Segal. Dr. S. |
| Davies. Edward (Burslem) | Kinley. J. | Shackleton. Wing-Corn. E. A. A |
| Davies. Ernest (Enheld) | Kirby. B V. | Sharp. Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Davies. Harold (Leek) | Lang. G. | Shawcross. C. N. (Widnes) |
| Davies. S. O. (Merthyr) | Lavers. S. | Shawcross. Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Deer. G. | Lawson. Rt. Hon. J. J. | Shurmer. P. |
| de Freitas. Geoffrey | Lee. Miss J. (Cannock) | Silverman. J. (Erdington) |
| Diamond. J. | Leslie. J. R. | Silverman. S. S. (Nelson) |
| Dodds. N. N. | Levy. B W. | Simmons. C. J. |
| Donovan. T. | Lewis. A. W. J. (Upton) | Skeffington. A. M. |
| Douglas. F. C. R. | Lindgren. G. S. | Skeffington-Lodge. T. C |
| Driberg. T. E. N. | Lipton. Lt.Col. M. | Skinnard. F. W. |
| Dugdale. J. (W. Bromwich) | Longden. F. | Smith. Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Dumpleton. C. W | Lyne. A. W. | Smith. Ellis (Stoke) |
| Durbin.E. F. M. | McAdam. W. | Smith. H. N. (Nottingham. S.) |
| Smith. T. (Normanton) | Thomas. John R. (Dover) | Wilcock. Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Snow. Capt. J. W. | Thomas. George (Cardiff) | Wilkes. Maj. L |
| Solley. L. J. | Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.) | Wilkins. W. A. |
| Sorensen. R. W. | Thorneycroft. H. (Manchester. C.) | Willey. F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Soskice. Maj. Sir F. | Tiffany. S. | Willey. O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Sparks. J. A | Tlmmons. J. | Williams. D. J. (Neath) |
| Stamford. W. | Titterington. M. F. | Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Steele. T | Tolley, L. | Williams. W R. (Heston) |
| Stephen. C. | Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G | Williamson. T. |
| Stewart. Capt. Michael (Fulham. E.) | Ungood-Thomas, L. | Willis. E. |
| Strachey, J. | Usborne. Henry | Wills. Mrs E. A |
| Strauss. G. R. | Vernon. Maj. W. F | Wilson. J. H |
| Stross. Dr B | Viant. S. P. | Wise. Major F. J |
| Stubbs. A. E. | Walkden. E. | Woodburn. A. |
| Summerskill. Dr. Edith | Walker. G. H. | Woods. G. S. |
| Swingler. Capt S. | Wallace. H. W. (Walthamstow. E.> | Yates. V F. |
| Symonds. Maj. A. L. | Warbey. W. N | Younger. Hon. Kenneth |
| Taylor. H. B. (Mansfield) | Weitzman. D. | Zilliacus. K. |
| Taylor. R J. (Morpeth) | Wells. P. L (Faversham) | |
| Taylor. Dr. S. (Barnet) | Wells. W. T. (Walsall) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Thomas Ivor (Keighley) | White. H (Derbyshire. N.E) | Mr. Pearson and |
| Thomas. I O (Wrekin) | Whiteley. Rt. Hon. W. | Captain Bing. |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken. Hon. Max. | Hellis. M. C. | Prescott. Stanley |
| Amory. D. Heathcoat | Hope. Lord J. | Price-White. Lt.-Col. D |
| Astor. Hon. M | Howard. Hon. A. | Prior-Palmer. Brig O |
| Baldwin. A. E. | Hutchison. Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Raikes. H V. |
| Baxter. A. B. | Hutchison. Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.) | Ramsay. Maj. S. |
| Bossom. A. C | Jarvis, sir J. | Rayner. Brig. R. |
| Bowen, R. | Jeffreys. General sir G | Rayer. Big. R. |
| Bower. N | Keeling E. H | Reid. Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Boyd-Carpenter. J. A. | Kerr. Sir J. Graham | Renton. D. |
| Bracken. Rt. Hon. Brendan | Lambert. Hon. G. | Roberts. Sqn.-Ldr Entrys (Merioneth) |
| Braithwaits. Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Lancaster. Col. C. G. | Roberts. Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. W | Langford-Holt. J. | Robertson. Sir D. (Streatham) |
| Brown. W. J. (Rugby) | Law. Rt. Hon. R. K. | Ropnor. Col. L. |
| Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T. | Legge-Bourke. Maj. E. A. H. | Ross. Sir R. |
| Byers. Lt.-Col. F. | Lennox-Boyd. A. T. | Smithers. Sir W. |
| Carson. E. | Lindsay. M. (Solihull) | Spearman. A. C. M. |
| Clarke. Col. R. S. | Linstead. H. N. | Stanley. Rt. Hon. O. |
| Clifton-Brown. Lt.-Col. G | Lloyd. Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.) | Strauss. H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Cooper-Key. E. M. | Lucas. Major Sir J. | Stuart. Rt. Hon. J. |
| Corbett. Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Lucas-Tooth. Sir H. | Studholme. H. G |
| Crookshank. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Mackeson. Lt.-Col. H. R. | Suteliffe. H. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E. | McKie. J. H. (Galloway) | Taylor. C S. (Eastbourne) |
| Crowder. Capt. J F. E. | Maclay. Hon. J. S. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton. S.) |
| Cuthbert. W. N. | Macmillan. Rt. Hon. Harold | Thomas. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Darling. Sir W. Y. | Macpherson. Maj. N. (Dumfries) | Thorneycroft. G. E P. (Monmouth) |
| Davies. Clement (Montgomery) | Maitland. Comdr. J. W. | Thornton-Kemsley. C. N. |
| De la Bère. R. | Marples. A. E. | Turton. R. H. |
| Digby. Maj. S. W. | Maude. J. C. | Vane. W. M. T. |
| Dodds-Parker. A. D. | Medlicott. Brig. F. | Wakefield. Sir W. W |
| Drayson. G. B. | Mellor. Sir J. | Walker-Smith. D. |
| Eccles. D M. | Morris. Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Ward. Hon. G. R |
| Eden. Rt. Hon. A. | Morrison. Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Wheatley. Col. M. J. |
| Foster. J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison. Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | White. J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Gage. Lt.-Col. C. | Nicholson. G. | Williams. C. (Torquay) |
| Glossop. C. W H. | Noble. Comdr. A. H. P | Williams. Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Grimston. R. V. | Nutting. Anthony | Willink. Rt. Hon. H. U. |
| Hannon. Sir P. (Moseloy) | Orr-Ewing. I. L. | Willoughby de Eresby. Lord |
| Hare. Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Osborne, C. | Young. Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Harvey. Air-Comdre. A. V. | Peto. Brig. C H. M | |
| Headlam. Lieut -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. | Pickthorn. K. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Herbert. Sir A. P. | Ponsonby. Col. C. E. | Mr. Drewe and |
| Hogg. Hon. Q. | Poole. O. B. S. (Oswestry) | Commander Agney |
§ Question put accordingly." That the Proposed Words be there inserted."
966§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 116; Noes. 308.
969| Division No. 118.] | AYES. | [11.3 p.m. |
| Agnew, Cmdr P. G | Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. W | Darling. Sir W Y. |
| Aitken. Hon. Max. | Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T. | De la Bère. R. |
| Amory. D. Heathcoat | Carson. E. | Digby. Major S. W. |
| Astor. Hon. M. | Clarke. Col. R. S. | Dodds-Parker. A. D. |
| Baldwin. A. E. | Clifton-Brown. Ll.-Cot. G | Drayson. G. B |
| Baxter. A. B. | Conant. Maj. R. J. E. | Drewe. C. |
| Bossom. A. C | Cooper-Key. E. M. | Eccles. D. M. |
| Bowen. R. | Corbett. Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Eden. Rt. Hon. A. |
| Bower. N. | Crookshank. Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Foster. J. G. (Northwich) |
| Boyd-Carpenter. J. A. | Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E | Gage. Lt.-Col. C. |
| Bracken. Rt. Hon. Brendan | Crowder. Capt J. F. E. | Glossop. C. W. H. |
| Braithwaite. Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Cuthbert. W. N | Grimston. R V. |
| Hannon. Sir P. (Moseley) | Maclay. Hon. J. S. | Ropner Col. L |
| Hare. Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Macmillan. Rt. Hon. Harold | Ross. Sir R. |
| Harvey. Air-Comdre. A. V | Macpherson. Maj N. (Dumfries) | Smithers. Sir W. |
| Headlam. Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C | Maitland. Comdr. J. W | Spearman. A. C. M. |
| Hogg. Hon Q. | Marples. A. E. | Stanley. Rt. Hon. O |
| Hollis. M. C. | Maude. J. C. | Strauss. H. G. (Com Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Hope. Lord J | Medlicott. Brig. F | Stuart. Rt. Hon. J. |
| Howard. Hon. A. | Mellor. Sir J. | Sutcliffe. H. |
| Hutchison. Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Morris. Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Taylor. C. S (Eastbourne) |
| Hutchison Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C.) | Morrison. Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Taylor. Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.) |
| Jarvis. Sir J. | Morrison, Rt. Hn. W S. (Cirencester) | Thomas. J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Jeffreys. General Sir G | Nicholson. G | Thorneycroft G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
| Keeling. E. H. | Noble. Comdr. A. H. P | Thornton-Kemsley. C N |
| Kerr. Sir J. Graham | Nutting. Anthony | Turton. R. H. |
| Lambert. Hon. G. | Osborne. C. | Vane. W. M. T. |
| Lancaster. Col. C G. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Wakefield. Sir W W |
| Langford-Holt. J. | Pickthorn. K. | Walker-Smith. D. |
| Law. Rt Hon. R. K. | Ponsonby. Col. C E. | Ward. Hon. G. R |
| Legge-Bourke. Maj. E. A. H. | Poole. O B. S. (Oswestry) | Wheatley. Col. M. J. |
| Lennox-Boyd. A. T. | Prescott. Stanley | White. J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Lindsay. M. (Solihull) | Price-White. Lt.-Col. D | Williams. C (Torquay) |
| Linstead. H. N. | Prior-Palmer. Brig. O. | Williams. Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Lloyd. Maj. Guy (Renfrew. E.) | Raikes. H. V. | Willink. Rt. Hon. H. U |
| Low. Brig. A. R. W. | Ramsay, Maj. S. | Willoughby de Eresby. Lord |
| Lucas, Major Sir J. | Rayner, Brig. R | |
| Lucas-Tooth. Sir H. | Reid. Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mackeson. Lt.-Col. H. R. | Renton. D. | Sir Arthur Young and |
| McKie. J. H. (Galloway) | Roberts. Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) | Mr Studholme' |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams. Richard (Balham) | Cocks. F. S | Griffths. Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly) |
| Adams. W T. (Hammersmith. South) | Coldrick. W. | Guest. Dr. L. Haden |
| Adamson. Mrs. J. L. | Collick. P. | Gunter. Capt. R. J. |
| Allen. A. C. (Bosworth) | Collindridge. F. | Guy. W. H. |
| Alpass. J. H. | Collins. V. J. | Haire Flt. Lt. J. (Wycombe) |
| Anderson. A. (Motherwell) | Colman. Miss G. M | Hale. Leslie |
| Attewell. H. C. | Comyns. Dr L. | Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare) |
| Attlee. Rt. Hon C. R | Corbet. Mrs. F. K (Camb'well. N.W.) | Hall. W. G. (Colne Valley) |
| Austin. H. L | Corlett. Dr. J. | Hamilton. Lieut.-Col. R |
| Awbery. S. S | Cove. W. G. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Ayles. W. H. | Crawley. Flt.-Lieut. A. | Hardman. D. R |
| Ayrton Gould. Mrs. B. | Daggar. G. | Hardy. E. A. |
| Bacon. Miss A. | Daines. P. | Harrison. J. |
| Baird. Capt. J | Dalton Rt. Hon. H. | Hastings. Dr. Somerville |
| Balfour. A. | Davies Edward (Burslem) | Haworth. J. |
| Barnes. Rt. Hon. A J | Davies Clement (Montgomery) | Henderson. A. (Kingswinford) |
| Barstow. P. G | Davies Ernest (Enfield) | Henderson. J. (Ardwick) |
| Barton. C | Davies Harold (Leek) | Hewitson. Capt. M |
| Battley. J. R | Davies S. O. (Merthyr) | Hicks. G |
| Bechervaise. A E | Deer. G | Hobson. C. R. |
| Belcher. J. W | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Holman, P. |
| Bellenger. F. J | Diamond. J. | Holmes. H. E. (Hemsworth) |
| Benson. G | Dodds. N. N | Horabin. T. L. |
| Berry. H. | Donovan. T. | House. G. |
| Bevan. Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) | Douglas. F C. R. | Hoy. J |
| Bevin, Rt Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) | Driberg. T. E. N. | Hudson J H. (Ealing. W.) |
| Binns. J | Dugdale. J. (W. Bromwich) | Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen. N.) |
| Blackburn. A. R. | Dumpleton. C. W. | Hughes. Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.) |
| Blekinsop. Capt.A | Durbin. E. F. M. | Hynd. H. (Hackney. C.) |
| Boardman; H. | Dye. S | Hynd. J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Bottomley. A G. | Ede. Rt. Hon. J. C | Irving. W. J. |
| Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Edelman. M. | Isaacs. Rt. Hon. G A |
| Bowles. F. G (Nuneaton) | Edwards. A. (Middlesbrough. E.) | Janner. B. |
| Braddock. Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l. Exch'ge) | Edwards. John (Blackburn) | Jeger. G. (Winchester) |
| Braddock. T. (Mitcham) | Edwards. N (Caerphilly) | Jeser. Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S.E.) |
| Brock. D. (Halifax) | Edwards. W J. (Whitechapel) | Jones. D T. (Hartlepools) |
| Brooks. T. J. (Rothwell) | Evans. E (Lowestoft) | Jones. Asterley (Hitchin) |
| Brown. George (Belper) | Evans. S. N. (Wednesbury) | Keenan. W. |
| Brown. T. J (Ince) | Farthing. W. J. | Kendall. W. D |
| Brown. W. J. (Rugby) | Fletcher. E. G. M. (Islington. E.) | Kenyon. C. |
| Bruce. Major D. W. T. | Foster. W. (Wigan) | Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr. E. |
| Burden. T. W | Freeman. Maj. J. (Watford) | Kinley. J. |
| Burke. W. A. | Freeman. Peter (Newport) | Kirby. B. V |
| Butler. H. W. (Hackney. S.) | Gaitskell. H. T. N | Lang. G |
| Byers. Lt.-Col. F. | Ganley. Mrs. C. S. | Lavers. S |
| Callaghan. James | Gibbins. J. | Lawson. Rt. Hon. J. J |
| Castle. Mrs. B. A. | Gibson. C. W | Lee. Miss J. (Cannock) |
| Chamberlain. R. A. | Gilzean. A. | Leslie. J. R. |
| Champion. A. J. | Goodrich. H. E. | Levy. B. W. |
| Chater. D. | Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A. | Lewis. A. W. J. (Upton) |
| Chetwynd. Capt. G R | Greenwood. A. W- J. (Heywood) | Lindgren. G. S. |
| Clitherow. Dr. R. | Grenfell. D. R. | Lipton. Lt.-Col. M. |
| Cluse. W S | Grierson. E. | Longden. F. |
| Cobb. F A. | Griffiths. D. (Rother Valley) | Lyne. A. W. |
| McAdam. W. | Pritt. D. N. | Taylor. H. B. (Mansfield) |
| McAllister. G. | Proctor. W. T. | Taylor. H. B. (Mansfield) |
| McGhee. H. G | Pursey. Cmdr. H. | Taylor. Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Mack. J. D. | Ranger. J. | Thomas. Ivor (Keighley) |
| McKay. J. (Wallsend) | Rankin. J. | Thomas. I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Mackay. R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.) | Rees-Williams. D. R. | Thomas. John R. (Dover) |
| Maclean. N. (Govan) | Reeves. J. | Thomas. George (Cardiff) |
| McLeavy. F. | Reid. T. (Swindon) | Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh.E.) |
| Macpherson. T. (Romford) | Rhodes. H. | Thorneycroft. H. (Manchester. C.) |
| Mallalieu. J. P. W. | Richards. R. | Tiffany. S. |
| Manning. C. (Camberwell. N.) | Ridealgh. Mrs. M. | Timmons. J. |
| Manning. Mrs. L. (Epping). | Robens. A. | Titterington. M. F. |
| Marquand. H. A. | Roberts. Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) | Tolley. L. |
| Marshall. F. (Brightside) | Roberts. Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G |
| Mathers. G. | Robertson. J. J. (Berwick) | Ungood-Thomas. L. |
| Mayhew. C. P. | Rogers. G. H. R. | Usborne. Henry |
| Middleton. Mrs. L. | Sargood. R. | Vernon. Maj. W. F. |
| Mituhison. Maj. G R | Scollan. T. | Viant. S. P. |
| Monslow. W. | Scott-Elliot. W. | Walkden. E. |
| Montague. F. | Segal. Dr. S. | Walker. G. H. |
| Moody. A. S. | Sharp. Lt.-Col. G. M. | Wallace. H. W. (Walthamstow. E.) |
| Morgan. Dr. H. B. | Shawcross. C. N. (Widnes) | Warbey. W. N. |
| Morris. P. (Swansea. W.) | Shawcross. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Weitzman. D. |
| Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.) | Shurmer. P. | Wells. P. L. (Faversham) |
| Moyle. A. | Silverman. J. (Erdington) | Wells. W. T. (Walsall) |
| Nally. W | Silverman. S. S. (Nelson) | White. H. (Derbyshire. N.E.) |
| Neal. H (Claycross) | Simmons. C. J. | Whiteley. Rt. Hon. W. |
| Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.) | Skeffington. A. M. | Wilcock. Group-Capt C. A. B. |
| Nicholls. H. R. (Stratford) | Skeffington-Lodge. T. C. | Wilkes. Maj. L. |
| Noel-Baker. Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Skinnard. F. W | Wilkins. W. A. |
| Noel-Baker. Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) | Smith. Capt. C. (Colchester) | Willey. F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Noel-Buxton. Lady | Smith. Ellis (Stoke) | Willey. O. G. (Cleveland) |
| O'Brien. T. | Smith.. H. N. (Nottingham. S.) | Williams. D. J. (Neath) |
| Oldfield. W. H. | Smith. T. (Normanton) | Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Oliver. G. H. | Snow. Capt. J. W. | Williams. W- R. (Heston) |
| Orbach. M. | Solley. L. J. | Williamson. T. |
| Paling. Will T. (Dewsbury) | Sorensen. R. W. | Willis. E. |
| Palmer A M. F. | Soskice. Maj. Sir F. | Wills. Mrs. E. A |
| Pargiter. G. A. | Sparks. J. A. | Wilson. J. H. |
| Parker. J. | Stamford. W | Wise. Major F. J. |
| Parkin. Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Steele. T. | Woodburn. A. |
| Paton. Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Stephen. C. | Woods. G. S. |
| Gordon-Walker. P. C. | Stewart. Capt. Michael (Fulham. E) | Yates. V. F. |
| Paton. J. (Norwich) | Strachey. J. | Younger. Hon. Kenneth |
| Peart. Capt. T. F | Strauss. G. R | Zilliacus. K |
| Perrins. W. | Stross. Dr. B. | |
| Platts-Mills. J. F. F. | stubbs. A. E. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Popplewell. E. | Summerskill. Dr. Edith | Mr. Pearson and |
| Porter. E. (Warrington) | Swingler. Capt. S. | Captain Bing. |
| Porter. G. (Leeds). | Symonds. Maj. A. L. |
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. EdenI beg to move. "That the Chairman do report Progress. and ask leave to sit again."
I do this in order to give the Government an opportunity to tell us their intentions. I think it will be generally agreed that we have had. on all these topics of importance to the future of the nation. a vigorous and—if perhaps I may say without disrespect to you. Major Milner—a not unduly extended discussion. Nonetheless. the hour. as we all perceive. becomes slightly late and there are yet issues of importance to discuss. one affecting local authorities, and another, on Clause I standing part. which still opens wide fields for discussion. So I hope that the Government. who must desire the fullest discussion. and the fullest public attention to be concentrated on these matters. will not wish to have discussions on these at this hour of the night. [Interruption.] Of course. if it is agreeable to hon. Gentlemen 970 opposite, it is agreeable to us. I was only assuming that the Government would wish naturally to afford the widest democratic opportunities both for those who speak and for those who listen. It may be otherwise. but it is for the Government to say. On that assumption. I would ask the Government what their intentions are and whether. in view of the importance of the matters we still have to discuss. it might not perhaps be wiser and more desirable for them to be discussed on another day.
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)We have now had two days on the Committee stage of the Bill and we have not yet passed Clause I. We are still on that Clause. and I should have thought that two whole days would have been sufficient. To spend so much time on such a small Bill as this is a long time. I do not complain about the speed with which the Committee is proceeding. but I am bound to say that I think the discusstons on both days of the Committee 971 stage have been somewhat leisurely in character. I know perfectly well that we have moved the Closure as we went along and we have thought it quite fair to do so. There have been quite lengthy Debates on each of these Amendments and yet I have not noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in any hurry to move the Bill along. For that reason I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has now got into a hurry to get along.
§ Mr. EdenThat may be so but I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can recall a Government ever moving the Closure on its Attorney-General.
§ Mr. MorrisonI think that that is a complete and conclusive demonstration of the fairmindedness of Cie Government. [Interruption.] In the circumstances we thought it very reasonable that we should get the Committee stage in two days. and we propose to get it in two Sittings. Therefore. I am bound to inform the right hon. Gentleman that it is the intention of the Government to continue the consideration of the Bill until the Committee stage is concluded.
§ Mr. Clement DaviesI deeply regret the statement which has just been made. and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider it. I myself have certainly not been obstructive. but really it is no answer to say that we have not proceeded beyond one Clause. There is only one Clause. and the Bill does raise some very fundamental issues. It took a tremendously long time to prepare the previous Bill for its passage through this House. and I do not think we have taken a very long time in discussing each of these Amendments which have such a fundamental bearing on the life of the country. Might I make an appeal to the Government to reconsider this before we go on to deal with the very important point affecting local authorities?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanBefore we part with this proposal. there is one consideration to which. I think. the Government might have regard. and that is that the Opposition are rather lucky in being able to have these repeated Debates in Committee on this Bill at all. All these matters which are now being raised in Committee. with protracted Debates on each. arose. every one of them. and were decided upon. when the House gave a 972 Second Reading to the Bill. There is no new point at all. and when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) says that it is only a one Clause Bill. he is really making the same point which I was making.
§ Mr. C. DaviesHow can the hon. Member really say that. when I said. in agreeing to the Second Reading. that I made certain exceptions to certain provisions?
§ Mr. S. Silverman:Everyone wishes to make special exceptions. and the result of that is that we have two days' repetition in Committee of what was. in fact. the Second Reading Debate. In these circumstances it is quite fair of the Government to say that we ought to close the Commitee stage of the Bill tonight.
§ Mr. EdenI only intervene again to point out to the Leader of the House the revelation contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He has told us that we have had a Second Reading of a Bill. which embodied every principle. and that the Opposition then have had the temerity to ask that these principles shall be individually discussed. What is this House of Commons for? I understand. according to the hon. Member. that a Bill. which on Second Reading has the approval of hon. Members opposite. then becomes a Measure—and I do not know how this affects the Chair—and that individual items must never be discussed again until the Third Reading. when it comes back. I suppose. for the rubber stamp.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanThe right hon Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that that is the very last remark which can fairly be made of me. I have never been a "rubber stamp "Member of the House. and the right hon Gentleman knows it. and when there have been occasions on which I have differed from the Government. I have never hesitated to say so. In a Debate on this particular Bill. there is no question of a Member raising an Amendment on a subject which was not covered in the Second Reading Debate.
§ Mr. EdenI always listen with respect to what the hon. Member says. but I am bound to say that he does not carry any conviction in his last sentence. What he says is that there is no principle in this 973 Bill which was not covered in the Second Reading Debate. Has there ever been a Bill which did not cover every principle on Second Reading?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanThe practice has been. surely. that the House decides a question of principle once and for all on the Second Reading Debate.
§ Mr. EdenThe hon. Member is really confusing Parliamentary practice with the experience of some foreign State. He has got it all muddled up. if I may say so. While on Second Reading we express our general views on the Measure we have always held our complete liberty to discuss every principle of the Measure in Committee. if called upon to do so by the Chair.
That is the whole basis of our Parliamentary discussions, and, if it is not so. it is not worth while having a Committee stage at all. I say to the right hon. Gentleman again. having heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. and having also heard him. if I may say so with respect to the Committee. make the cheap gibe that we have not got of the end of Clause I. when he knows perfectly well how many Clauses there are in this Bill. that it is for him to decide whether he prefers to take these important discussions which have not been obstructed.[Interruption.]If hon. Gentlemen call this obstruction. their Parliamentary experience is indeed limited. I have never heard a Debate more evenly balanced in time or more onesided in argument. If the right hon. Gentleman. in spite of that experience. wants to drive this thing through tonight. of course. he can do so because the Liberal Party and my party are a minority. But having had a few years' experience in this House. I would advise him to reconsider his decision and let us have a discussion. at a reasonable hour. on issues that affect the future of this nation.
§ Mr. HoggI trust that the Committee will not part with this important discussion in a hurry. We are discussing some of the most important issues of democratic procedure in this House. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. in a rather extraordinary statement which he made a few minutes ago. was a little less than ingenuous in his dealings with us. I refer to his remarks 974 that we had not yet finished Clause t of the Bill. I have been to some considerable trouble to consider the time given to the various Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are dealing with the repeal of a Statute which contains seven or eight major principles. which took. I think. three days on Second Reading. and 21 days in Committee. when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in Opposition. The attitude taken by his party on that occasion is in marked contrast to the policy which we are using now: If anyone wanted to see which party in this State was most devoted to freedom of discussion. they would have only to look at the generosity of the party of which I am a member. which will not bear comparison with the deliberately repressive attitude which is sought to be imposed upon us by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.
Let us consider the time which we have absorbed today in our discussions. First of all. we had a discussion on home picketing which ran for only two hours when the Closure was moved. If there had been. Major Milner. as hon. Members opposite seem inclined to suggest. any obstruction on the part of the Opposition. you. no doubt. would have prevented us from indulging in it. I can only regard that suggestion as a direct reflection upon the Chair. After about two hours' discussion of that Amendment. the Closure was moved and accepted. It would not be proper. as it was accepted. to say anything more about that than this: It certainly was not moved in a tardy or leisurely fashion by the Chief Whip. who has control of these things.
The second discussion was one of the major political issues of the time—the question of contracting in or contracting out. What was the time allotted for the discussion of that important matter? of course. we can appreciate the reason why the Government may want to restrict the Committee on this point. It is because their whole political morality is in question. I must not say anything more about that discussion than that. after a period of time. which was within a few minutes of the time allowed on the question of picketing. the Closure was moved. at a time when numerous Members were seeking to speak. Not only were they Members of my own Party. but they included hon. Members below the Gang 975 way who belong to other parties. I saw the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. j. Brown) rise on numerous occasions. as well as other Members. None was able to offer a valuable contribution to those discussions. We cannot complain that the Closure has now been accepted by the Chair.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr)On a point of Order. Major Milner. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to address this Committee by giving a long prècis of matters that have been disposed of already in the Debate?
§ The Chairman (Major Milner)The hon. Member, so far, has been clearly in Order.
§ Mr. HoggI thank you for that Ruling. because. of course. it is sometimes difficult for minorities in this Committee who find themselves in the presence of an over-confident and arrogant majority. to get a hearing for themselves. To revert to the point with which I was dealing. the Closure was moved and accepted on that major issue with only that amount of discussion which had been allowed on the previous matter. I cannot without reflection upon yourself. Mr. Chairman. sav that that was premature. but I am entitled to say that it certainly was not unduly delayed. For the right hon. Gentleman to come here and to complain that the discussions upon this Measure have been protracted. as he did. is really almost impudence. It is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has been treated in this matter with the umost courtesy by the Opposition. which is more than we can say for the Government and their supporters. To complain. as he has. that we have been protracted in our discussions shows what short shrift he is really prepared to give to the Parliamentary traditions of this House. We have just concluded a discussion on the Civil Service. That discussion took. within a matter of minutes. the same time as the Debate on the previous issue. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman. if he pretends that our proceedings have been leisurely. exactly what short space of time he thinks ought to be given to discussions of these matters? It is an insult to the Committee. it is an 976 insult to the sense of seriousness with which we approach our duty. it is. in fact. an insult to the whole traditions of Parliamentary discussion to suggest that a time shorter than two hours can he given to these matters.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWe want to give him another six hours but he will not take it.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) shows only too plainly where his sympathies lie. He thought there should not be a Committee stage at all. He did not want that stage despite the fact that his contribution to our discussions was longer than that of any other hon. Member. He did not allow that little detail to prevent him seeking to avoid a separate vote upon each issue.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI only want to point out to the hon. Gentleman that. so far from wanting to prevent him. I am in favour of the Government's proposition to give him seven hours more in which to discuss the Bill as long as he likes. Of what. then. is the hon. Gentleman complaining?
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman failed to make his position clear as also did certain other Members of the Committee. If he is on our side in this matter. then I welcome him as a new recruit. I only hope that we shall hear the reasons for his diversion at a later time. The Government are clearly determined to play fast and loose with the traditions of the House of Commons. and in doing so are determined to pass through this highly unpopular Measure with the advantage of their arithmetical majority. Such tactics will not benefit either themselves or the House of Commons. and these tactics. in the end. will be destructive of parliamentary practice. Those of us on this side of the Committee. I surest. are the true champions of our Constitution [Interruption.] The gag is being imposed. and it will be imposed again. Members opposite are proud of the fact. but the time will come when it is realised that we have a National Socialist Government.
§ Question put. "That the Chairman do report Progress.. and "ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 115; Noes. 286.
979| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | [11.40 p.m |
| Agnew, Cmdr P. G. | Herbert, Sir A. P. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Hogg, Hon. Q. | Pickthorn, K. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hollis, Sqn.-Ld.- M C | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hope, Lord J. | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D |
| Baldwin. A, E. | Horabin, T. L. | Prior-Palmer, Brig O |
| Baxter, A. B | Howard, Hon. A. | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bossom, A. G. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Bowen, R | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bower, N. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Renton, D. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Keeling, E. H. | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G, | Lambert, Hon. G. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Brown, W. J- (Rugby) | Langford-Holt, J. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O |
| Carson, E. | Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Linstead, H. N. | Smart Rt. Hon. J. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Conant, Maj. R J. E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (p'dd't'n, S.) |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Mackeson, Lt-Col. H. R. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E. | McKie, J. H (Galloway) | Thornton-Kemsley, C-N. |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Maclay, Hon. J S | Turton, R. H. |
| Darling Sir W. Y. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir W. W |
| De la Bère, R. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Dighy, Major S. W. | Marples, Capt. A. E. | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maude, J. C. | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Medlicolt, Brig. F. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Drewe, C. | Mellor, Sir J. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Eccles, D. M. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Willink, Rt. Hon H U |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison:, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Nicholson, G. | |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | TELLERS TOR THE AYES |
| Grimston, R. V. | Nutting, Anthony | Sir Arthur Young. and |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W"dbridge) | Orr-Ewing, I L. | Mr. Studholme. |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V | Osborne, C |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South) | Chamberlain, B. A. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Champion., A. J | Farthing, W. J. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Chater, D | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Chetwynd, Capt G R | Foster, W. (Wigan) |
| Anderson, A (Motherwell) | Clitherow, Dr. R. | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Cobb, F A | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R | Cocks, F. S | Gaitskell, H. T. N. |
| Austin, H. L.. | Coldrick, W | Ganley, Mrs. C. S |
| Awbery, S. S. | Collick, P. | Gibbins, J. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Collindridge, F. | Gibson, C. W |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Collins, V. J. | Gilzean, A. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Colman, Miss G. M. | Goodrich, H. E. |
| Baird, Capt. J | Comyns, Dr. L. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Balfour, A. | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Barnas, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Corlett, Dr. J. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) |
| Barton, C | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. | Grenfell, D. R. |
| Battley, J. R. | Daggar, G. | Grierson, E. |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Daines, P. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Belcher, J. W. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly) |
| Berry, H | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Griffiths. Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) |
| Bevin. Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) | Davies, S O. (Merthyr) | Guest, Dr. L. Haden |
| Binns, J. | Deer, G | Gunter, Capt. R. J. |
| Blackburn, A. R | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) |
| Blenkirsop, Capt. A. | Delargy, Captain H. J | Hale, Leslie |
| Boardman, H | Diamond, J. | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) |
| Bottomloy, A. G. | Dodds, N. N. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Donovan, T. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Douglas, F. C. R. | Hardman, D. R. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Driberg, T E. N. | Hardy, E. A. |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Harrison, J. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Dumpleton, C. W. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Brooks, T J. (Rothwell) | Durbin, E. F. M. | Haworth, J |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Dye, S. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Ede, Rt. Hon. J C | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Edelman, M. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Burden, T. W. | Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hicks, G. |
| Burke. W. A. | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Hobson, C. R. |
| Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.) | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Holman, P. |
| Callaghan; James | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) |
| House. G. | Noel-Buxton. Lady | Stephen. C. |
| Hoy. J. | O'Brien. T. | Stewart. Capt. Michael (Fulham. E.) |
| Hudson. J. H. (Ealing. W.) | Oldfield. W. H. | Strachey. J. |
| Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen. N.) | Oliver. G. H. | Strauss. G. R. |
| Hughes. Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.) | Orbach. M. | Stross. Dr. B |
| Hynd. H. (Hackney. C.) | Paling. Will T. (Dewsbury) | Stubbs. A. E. |
| Hynd. J. B. (Atterclife) | Palmer. A. M. F. | Summerskill. Dr. Edith |
| Irving. W. J. | Pargiter. G. A. | Swingler. Capt. S |
| Isaacs. Rt. Hon G. A. | Parkin. Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Symonds. Maj. A. L. |
| Janner. B. | Paton. Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Taylor. H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Jeger. Capt. G. (Winchester) | Paton. J. (Norwich) | Taylor. R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Jeger. Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S.E.) | Peart. Capt. T. F. | Taylor. Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Jones. D. T. (Hartlepools) | Perrins. W. | Thomas. Ivor (Keighley) |
| Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Platts-Mills. J. F. F. | Thomas. I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Keenan. W. | Popplewell. E. | Thomas. John R. (Dover) |
| Kenyon. C. | Porter. E. (Warrington) | Thomas. George (Cardiff) |
| Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Pritt. D. N. | Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.) |
| Kinley. J. | Proctor. W. T. | Thorneycroft. H. (Manchester. C.) |
| Kirby. B V. | Pursey. Cmdr. H. | Tiffany. S. |
| Lang. G. | Ranger. J. | Timmons. J. |
| Lavers. S. | Rankin. J. | Titterington. M. F. |
| Leslie, J. R. | Rees-Willlams. Lt.-Col. D. R. | Tolley. L |
| Levy. B. W. | Reeves. J. | Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G |
| Lewis. A. W. J. (Upton) | Reid. T. (Swindon) | Usborne. Henry |
| Lindgren. G. S. | Rhodes. H. | Vernon. Maj. W. F. |
| Lipton. Lt.-Col. M. | Ridealgh. Mrs. M | Walkden. E. |
| Longden. F. | Robens. A. | Walker. G. H. |
| Lyne. A. W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Wallace. H. W. (Walthamstow. E.) |
| McAdam. W | Robertson. J. J. (Berwick) | Warbey. W. N |
| McAllister. G | Rogers. G. H. R. | Weitzman. D. |
| .McGhee. H. G. | Sargood. R. | Wells. P. L. (Faversham) |
| Mack. J. D. | Scollan. T. | Wells. W. T (Walsall) |
| McKay. J. (Wallsend) | Scott-Elliot. W. | White. H. (Derbyshire. N.E.) |
| Mackay. R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.) | Segal. Dr. S. | Whiteley. Rt. Hon. W |
| Maclean. N. (Govan) | Shackleton. Wing-Com. E. A. A. | Wilcock. Group-Capt. C A. B |
| McLeavy. F. | Sharp. Lt.-Col. G. M. | Wilkes. Maj. L. |
| Macpherson. T. (Romford) | Shawcross. C. N. (Widnes) | Wilkins. W A. |
| Mallalieu. J. P. W. | Shawcross. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Willey. F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Manning. C. (Camberwell. N.) | Shurmer. P. | Willey. O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Manning. Mrs. L. (Epping) | Silverman. J. (Erdington) | Williams. D. J. (Neath) |
| Marquand. H. A. | Silverman. S. S. (Nelson) | Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Marshall. F. (Brightside) | Simmons. C. J. | Williams. W R. (Heston) |
| Mathers. G. | Skeffington. A. M. | Williamson. T. |
| Mayhew. C. P. | Skeffington-Lodge. T C | Willis. E. |
| Middleton. Mrs. L. | Skinnard. F W. | Wills. Mrs. E. A. |
| Mitchison. Maj. G. R. | Smith. Capt. C. (Colchester) | Wilmot. Rt. Hon. J |
| Monslow. W. | Smith. Ellis (Stoke) | Wilson. J. H. |
| Morgan. Dr. H. B. | Smith. H. N. (Nottingham. S.) | Wise. Major F. J |
| Morris. P. (Swansea. W.) | Smith. T. (Normanton) | Woodburn. A. |
| Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.) | Snow. Capt. J. W. | Woods. G. S. |
| Moyle. A. | Solley. L. J. | Yates. V. F. |
| Nally. W | Sorensen. R. W. | Younger. Hon Kenneth |
| Neal. H. (Claycross) | Soskice. Maj. Sir F. | Zilliacus. K |
| Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.) | Sparks. J. A | TELLERS POR THE NOES: |
| Nicholls. H. R. (Stratford) | Stamford. W | Mr. Pearson and |
| Noel-Baker. Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Steele. T | Captain Bing |
§ 11.45 p.m.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidI beg to move. in page1,line 5. at the beginning. to insert:
With the exception of subsections (1) and (3) of section six.
§ The ChairmanI would suggest that it might meet the convenience of the Committee to discuss this Amendment and the following one in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) together: In page 1. line 5. at the beginning. to insert:
With the exception of subsections (2) and (3) of section six.
§ Mr. ReidI doubt whether it is a matter of convenience. I do not think it will save very much time.,but if you. Major Milner, think it would be better to discuss 980 these two Amendments together. I should not propose to object.
§ Mr. ReidI propose this Amendment with no expectation of success. because the purpose of both Amendments is to preserve a measure of freedom for the working people of this country, as I shall seek to show. It is obvious that I shall have to go into some little detail in this matter as it is plain that hon. Members opposite do not understand the point that is being discussed. This matter has come up quite often in the past, in connection with local authorities. There are arguments both ways. I have no doubt that the better argument is that a local authority, being a public body, ought not 981 to impose on its servants conditions as to joining a union, and certainly ought not to impose on its servants the condition that they shall belong to a particular union. But this. in a Socialist world. raises much wider issues than that. because this Section. which is now proposed to repeal. refers not merely to local authorities but also to public authorities; and nationalised industries, as they are being nationalised. are being put under public authorities within the meaning of this Section. Therefore. what we are discussing under Subsection (1) of this Section is whether or not it is proper for a public authority. controlled by the Government. and having a monopoly in the industry. to impose upon the workers in that industry a condition that they shall and must belong to a specified union.
That is the issue. I am not at all surprised that the Government. with the dictatorial attitude which they have shown today. want this extra power to dictate to the workers of the country. But this Committee has to consider whether that is a good thing—[An Hort. MEMBER: "It will."] It will. and so long as the dictatorial frame of mind persists on the benches opposite I know what the result will be. I am quite sure that the country will not agree. and still less will the workers in these industries agree. What happens? An industry is nationalised. The Minister. according to the specimens which we have seen up to date. takes powers to give directions to the public authority which is managing the industry. One of those directions can. and certainly will. be related to the policy of employing labour. and it may very well be a direction that every man employed in that industry shall belong to a specified trade union. Now, there are industries in which there are more than one union. One can very well see the political lobbying that may go on behind the scenes, for the union with the biggest political pull will be in a position to freeze out all the others. That is what will happen. We shall have the big bosses of trade unionism making quite certain that they are completely free from any possibility of a split in their unions. of anybody being dissatisfied with them and supporting a rival union in order to get justice.
There are arguments about national monopolies. I do not like national monopolies any more than I like any other 982 kind, but hon. Gentlemen opposite draw a distinction between national and private monopolies. This trade-union monopoly in future is not going to be a national monopoly. It is going to be a private monopoly of the most dangerous character. The only hon. Gentleman holding Socialist views who has vet spoken up for the smaller unions is the hon Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I should be indeed surprised if he had not a good many friends on this issue on the other side. particularly among those who have been associated with those smaller unions which might well suffer if this policy went through. I leave that idea in the heads of those who are concerned.
Let me turn for a moment to the next aspect. which concerns the local authorities. On this subject I shall be very brief. because the arguments have been deployed before. Is it a good thing that it should be an issue in local elections as to what trade union shall be favoured by a particular authority? Local authorities may differ in their degrees of redness. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite not realise that there maybe local authorities which do not like the official unions and which wish to support a union rather further to the Left. a break-away union? Those local authorities may become a very troublesome focus if they are allowed to insist that all their employees shall belong to the unions which they specify. Hon. Gentlemen may think that. just at this minute. what I have been saying seems a little bit fanciful. but things move in this country. and sometimes move really fast. and hon. Gentlemen had better beware of what may happen if they open the door to this kind of thing. They have as good a knowledge of what may go on behind the scenes as any of us. and I am indeed surprised at the attitude which some of them take up. Indeed. I am quite sure that if the Government. or hon. Gentlemen opposite, were trying to devise a new Bill on the merits. and were not merely obsessed with the idea that whatever was done 20 years ago must be swept away. this is one of the last things they would do. But here we are; we have to follow the 20-year-old promise. given in the heat of anger. that all this will be swept away. and no common sense is allowed to interfere with the fulfilment of that old promise. founded on that old prejudice.
Let me turn to the next part of the Amendment associated with this one. 983 Before I do so, I trust that the Liberal Party are with us in this matter. because I think it worth recalling that on the last occasion when the matter came up. namely. in I931. Mr. Birkett. who then spoke for the Liberal Party. said that Section 6 was in principle a very serious invasion of the elementary rights of freedom. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite pay any attention to the views of the Liberal Party with regard to freedom; I think hon. Members here may be willing. and indeed glad. to follow in the steps of Mr. Birkett of 15 years ago.
I pass to the second Subsection. and this is even wider in its effect than the first. The first. as I have said. enables the Government to dictate that every employee in a nationalised industry shall belong to a specified union; this enables the Government to go a great deal further. and to dictate that every employee of anyone who contracts with the managing board of a nationalised industry shall also only employ members of the specified union. I could imagine that there are vecy few employers in the country who do not from time to time. or who will not from time to time. enter into contracts with some of the nationalised industries. and accordingly this Subsection gives to the Government almost complete power to dictate to a large majority of the workers of this country to which unions they shall belong. Is that the freedom which trade unionists cherish? Is that the freedom they like? Are they quite sure that they will always have a Government which is neither too far to the Right nor to the Left for their liking. that it will always give them exactly what they want? At the moment they may think they have such a Government. Are they really prepared to give away their freedom in this way. and to say that in future any Government. no matter what it may be. shall be entitled to dictate in this vital matter? It does surprise me that trade unionists. who at present occupy such a powerful place in the State. should be prepared to surrender their freedom so lightly. I should be very interested to know why they are doing it. apart from prejudice. If hon. Gentlemen do not believe me. I will read Subsection (2):
It shall not be lawful for any local or any other public authority to make it a condition of any contract made or proposed to be made with the authority or to the consideration or acceptance of any tender in connection with 984 such a contract that any person to be employed by any party to the contract shall or shall not be a member of the trade union.I2 m.So it is quite possible to have in your conditions of contract for any nationalised industry that those who tender. or those who accept that contract, must employ men belonging to the x union; and no other. That seems to me to be perfectly clear. [An HON. MEMBER "It says a trade union.' "] On the contrary. it was put to the Minister of Labour on Second Reading. and if I remember aright. the Minister of Labour expressed a view on this. I will get that in a moment; I will look it up. But it is perfectly clear that there is nothing to prevent any local authority, or any public authority. from specifying that those in its service should belong to a particular union. That has been admitted in debate. Equally. there is nothing to prevent its saying to any contractor. "You are not getting the contract unless all your men belong to a specified union." I say there is nothing to prevent that. and I challenge the learned Attorney-General to tell the Committee that there is anything in Statute or Common Law which would prevent it. If you abolish this safeguard. the trade unions of this country are delivering themselves. lock. stock and barrel. into the hands of whatever Government may happen to be in charge of the nationalised industries of this country.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterAs my right hon. and learned Friend below me has pointed out. the importance of this Section of the 1927 Act. which it is now sought to repeal, has been greatly increased by the events that have happened since its enactment. We are told. Major Milner. that we are now at a stage at which a large number of industries in this country are going to be nationalised. We are told that we are at a stage at which Government boards are to be set up to control industries. It therefore follows inevitably that. important as this Section was in the year 1927, it is of even greater importance today. because once this Section is repealed. it will be open not only to local authorities. but to boards acting under the authority of Ministers of the Crown, to lay down stringent conditions as to membership or non-membership of trade unions. What, Major Milner. is the justification for that? The only justification that was given on Second Reading. if it be a justification, is 985 contained in the speech of the learned Attorney-General. I hope hon. Members opposite will be prepared to listen with greater acquiescence to what the learned Attorney.General said on this occasion than they were on a previous occasion. What did the learned Attorney-General say? He said this:
We see no reason why democratically locally elected authorities or responsible and statutory public authorities. should be discriminated against by the law in this matter. heir position is not different from the posinon of any other employer. except perhaps to this extent: that their responsibilities to the electors. in so far as local authorities are concerned. and to the Government in so far as public authorities are concerned. makes it more likely that they can properly be entrusted with discretion in this matter. which is left apparently. without disadvantage to the ordinary private employer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. I2th February. 1946; Vol. 419. c. 214.]As I understand it. the line of argument adopted is that. because an employer has a right to say whether he will employ union men or non-union men, the same right is given either to local authorities or Government boards. I suggest that there are two very good reasons why the cases are not the same. Firstly. in the case of a Government board. these boards are having an increasing monopoly. and the Coalmining Board is an example of a monopoly employer of all men in the mining industry. and that being so. its position is fundamentally different from that of an ordinary private employer. [Interruption.] I am afraid I did not catch that observation. No doubt it was very helpful. and was intended to be constructive. If I may return to the Amendment. I would remind hon. Members opposite. who are treating this matter so lightly at this hour of the night, that it may affect the lives of their constituents for many years to come, and that they will have to answer to them. I was seeking to invite the attention of the Committee to the fundamental distinction in this matter, notwithstanding the Attorney-General's argument. In the first place. these boards will have a monopoly. and therefore the closed shop rule. for the National Coal Board, for example, is infinitely more serious from the national point of view than it would be in the case of any individual mining concern. Secondly, there is the fact that these authorities. local or national. are bodies dependent in one way or another on political control. It is therefore possible that political considerations, 986 as opposed to those considerations of business convenience, to which the Attorney-General thought fit to refer, will dominate decisions in these matters. This is surely a matter which at this stage of the Bill calls for the earnest consideration of hon. Members opposite. namely. whether they desire to introduce into our local. national. and industrial life the disturbing consequences which can so easily follow from a change in the existing law. As has been pointed out by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in front of me which has not so far been challenged. it would appear possible for local authorities. or for a National Board, to impose a condition not only that men employed by them should be members of a union. but that they should be members of a particular union.Hon. Members opposite, who are interested in the continued solidarity of the Labour Party. should be a little anxious as to the possibilities. In cases where you have in one area important unions or branches of national unions they migii well bid for control of some local authority with a view to making that local authority a closed shop for their particular union to the exclusion of others. I do not know what profound confidence hon. Members opposite have in one another. They may apprehend the possibility of one of their colleagues stealing a march on the others. In any event, that might introduce a certain disturbing element into their party. and it should be remembered that the removal of this prohibition of the Act of 1927 makes it possible for a local or national authority to make non-membership of a trade union a condition of employment. That would not be an action to be lightly or irresponsibly taken. But if this question of the employment of union or non-union labour is to be pushed into the forefront of our political and industrial life. the possibility that. under provocation. some local authority may well take this action is one not to be excluded. If hon. Members opposite vote against this Amendment. as I have no doubt they will. they will be taking on their shoulders the responsibility for making such a course legally possible.
There is one other matter, at this critical stage in the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite on nationalisation. It is in an early stage. when most fair-minded people would regard the whole matter as 987 still open. Are they really very wise to introduce into nationalised industry the disturbing element which the removal of prohibition of the Act of 1927 would inevitably produce? It is not for hon. Members on this side of the Committee to suggest other possible difficulties ofb nationalisation. I would say to hon. Members opposite. some of whom are. I believe. sincere believers in nationalisation: Do they think that they are doing a very wise thing. in the cause of nationalisation. in introducing tonight a disturbing factor such as this? If this Amendment is to be judged on its merits —if we are not to be steam-rollered and bulldozed through to relieve the feelings of the Foreign Secretary—if the real matter on each Amendment is to be seriously. conscientiously and honestly discussed. I would ask hon. Members opposite if. in their heart of hearts. they think that by voting down this Amendment they are doing a good service to the unions which some of them represent. or to that industrial future of this country for which they are all responsible.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanI see no reason why a contribution to this discussion should not be made from this side of the Committee. I listened with the greatest admiration to the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not regard it. on this side of the Committee. as an infringement of a man's liberty to say that if he works in a particular calling. and there is in that calling an organisation designed to protect the interests of those in it. and the profits from the achievements of that organisation. he shall take his place. with his comrades.in that organisation and pull his weight for the common good—[Interruption.]—I have only said a sentence or two. In a little while I will give way. We do not regard it as a fundamental difference between the—
§ Sir W. DarlingIt is not a Committee point.
§ Mr. Silverman—approach to industrial legislation on this side and the approach on that side. We do not regard it as interfering with the liberty of the subject to require a man in a calling to stand in with his comrades and protect the common interests in it. It is not an 988 infringement of liberty but an extension of it.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)In agriculture would the hon. Gentleman say whether a farm worker should join the N.U.A.W. or the Transport and General Workers' Union? Both unions cater for agricultural workers. Which should a farm worker join?
§ Sir W. DarlingIf a man is a local authority employee. which should he join. the N.U.P.E. or the Transport and General Workers' Union?
§ Mr. SilvermanThat seems to me to make the very point I got up to make much more quickly than I intended to make it. but I imagine there is no harm done by that. Supposing there were the difficulty that there was more than one union catering for the enlistment of such workers; supposing it became a matter of considerable difficulty for the worker to decide which of the organisations would better represent the interests of the trade in question. what do hon. Members opposite propose to do about it?—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Leave it to the man."] —Oh no. hon. Members do not propose anything of the sort. Let us see how this Amendment proposes to deal with that. It proposes to deal with it very simply. It proposes to maintain the present law. which says that it shall not be lawful to require a man to belong to any trade union at all. Does that meet the situation?
§ Sir W. DarlingIt gives him his freedom.
§ Mr. SilvermanI am coming to the point that was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) when moving this Amendment, about whether it would be lawful under the law as we now propose to restore it to—
§ Colonel Ropner (Barkston Ash)Is the hon. Member going to answer the question?
§ Mr. Silverman—require a man to join a particular trade union. I do not accept that. I know that there is a distinguished authority in support of it, but I do not accept it for all that. and I will come to it in a moment. Supposing the law stood making it unlawful to require a man to belong to any trade union, that 989 would be a very poor way of dealing with the difficulty. I will answer the question. I think a man ought to be perfectly free to decide what union he will belong to. If it were true that the simple restoration of the law as it was before 1927 made it possible for the employer. even where the employer is a local authority or a public authority. to choose which trade union a man ought to belong to. I should be against that and in favour of amending the law in order to cover that point.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidThen the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Minister of Labour. who on Second Reading of this Bill said:
If a local authority gets the power of saving they desire their workers to belong to a trade union. it is only sense that they should he able to say which unions they should join." [OFFicim. REPORT. I7th February. I946; Vol 419. C. 301.]
§ Mr. SilvermanIf the Minister of Labour said that. it is perfectly true I am in conflict with it. and I disagree with it. I do not know the circumstances in which that speech was made. but I accept for the purpose of argument that that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he did mean it. then with very great respect I beg to take the liberty of differing from him. If that were the law and there was an Amendment down in this Committee to amend the law so as to make it perfectly lawful for a man to specify to which union he should join when employed on a certain kind of work. I should have no hesitation in supporting it. and I would go into the Division Lobby in support of it if necessary. I do not see. for the life of me how it logically follows that because you do not want an employer to specify which of several trade unions a man must join. you must maintain a law which requires him to belong to any. It is characteristic of the kind of argument you get on these matters from the Opposition. and there is not much sincerity behind the argument. or any desire to protect anybody's liberty; but there is a desire to preserve. for ever if they can. the antisocial and anti-Labour legislation they hurried through in 1927. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hurried through? "] If they really did desire to see the law amended so that a man could be required to join a trade union but could not join a specified trade union. they have had 20 solid years in which to do it. and they cannot expect us to take them seriously tonight. In any 990 Case. we do not follow their argument because we have had 20 years of their bitterness, and we cannot follow them into their arguments now. Let them put clown an Amendment in which it shall be clear that a man may be free to join a trade union but not a trade union except that which he chooses; until they do this, they cannot expect us to take this seriously.
§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)I have listened to many of the speeches by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). and he is always soothing. but it is well that some of his earlier remarks in his speech took place before the Minister of Labour came in. because I think there might perhaps have been some recriminations outside. But. Major Milner. we have so far. I would like to say. been without the valuable information we might have had from the Communist Party. All day. its representatives have been conspicuously absent from our Debate—
§ The ChairmanThat does not arise here.
§ Mr. WilliamsBut. Major Milner. I was coming to the point. and you will rule me out of Order if it is not in Order. Surely it is in Order to say that under this Amendment a local authority is able to say that its employees must belong to a trade union. I was going to ask, What is the position if a local authority. as may well be in the future. has a Communist majority? What is going to be the position of a Socialist Government which finds itself with a local authority which has some new-fangled Communist ruling? Should it have the members of its staff in a Communist organisation? That may easily happen. We have not had it yet; but I hope I am in Order in pointing this out, because it is a thing which any one of us who has some knowledge—which I have tried to gain by watching the faces of Members opposite and watching the political moves of the day—should keep in mind when we are legislating like this. It may be that in 20 years' time we may see a completely different trend. It may be that many of the young Tories of to-day in a few years' time will be joining with some of the more moderate Gentlemen opposite because they will see that by these actions they have put a weapon into the hands of certain people to control the lives of people through 991 these unions. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne a minute or two ago quite rightly said that if there were a choice between two unions they should have the choice between the two unions. But I say that is not going far enough. What we want in our Amendment is not only that they should have a free choice between the two unions. but that they should have a free choice whether they join a union or not. and that the local authority should not put pressure on them.
May I take another illustration? Suppose you had a great revival of the Liberal Party, and they came into power, or even captured local authorities. They might say that no working man ought to have dealings with the Tory clubs in that division and that all had to belong to organisations of unions of their kind. That is one of the things that you are making possible. Simply because the Government at the present time have a colossal majority, and can do what they like, this is not necessarily a time to lay down laws which do affect a man's freedom in the way this Amendment would do. It is much better to think further ahead. As far as the Government are concerned. I have seen a growing sign of moderation in them since they blew their first breaches. I hope that on this occasion. so far as the local authorities are concerned. they can go some way to meet us. One concession in a Bill of this kind would not do any harm, and if they make it at this juncture this evening, it will be most helpful, and also most distasteful to the Communist Party, who are not here to help the Government.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am not at all sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) and I are not a little prejudiced in regard to this matter. for he and I are members of the legal profession the two branches of which usually incline to insist that if anybody be employed on legal matters he must belong to one union or another. I dare-say that my learned Friend and I cannot bring to bear on this matter the detached minds which other people may.
§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid Bedford)Two blacks do not make a white.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe first thing I want to say regarding the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman 992 addressed to the Committee is that there is nothing in this Bill which enables this Government. or any other Government. to dictate to any local authority. or any public authority. that their employees or their contractors' employees. should belong to a particular union. or. indeed. to any union at all. It is perfectly true that in Bills which this House is considering now various public corporations are being set up under a varying degree of Government control. Whether in the case of any of these corporations the Government should have such a degree of control as to enable them to direct a corporation to employ only members of a trade union, or of a particular trade union, is no doubt a matter which Parliament will consider when it comes to pass upon these particular Bills.
It certainly does not arise under this one, and I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee any longer in dealing with that point. to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman devoted some considerable portion of his speech.
12.30 a.m.
We are dealing here only with the case of local authorities or public authorities. There maybe—I doubt it myself but I may quite easily be wrong about this—good reasons for preventing any employer making membership of a trade union a condition of employment. I am told that enlightened and experienced employers have not found it so; they have usually considered that it makes for effective organisation of their industries. for the effective settlement of disputes. if all their employees are represented on one side of the table by a trade union representative. and not by the representatives of 20 different trade unions. but by the representative of one trade union. That is the common experience in industry. The employer says. "I will conduct negotiations with the representative of this union or that." and that employer is entitled. under our law as it stands now. to insist that his employees should become members of the union with whose representative he is prepared to negotiate terms and conditions of employment. That may be I. good or a bad thing. I am not expressing any final view on that matter.
But that is not the matter we are now discussing. There is no justification. in my submission. for singling out the most responsible body of employers. because it 993 can hardly be doubted that the public authority which is responsible, through some particular Government Department, to this House. or the local authority, which is responsible to the electors of its locality is a more responsible employer than a purely private undertaking. I repeat that there is no reason for singling out the most responsible class of employers. those who have to answer for what they do to Parliament or to their electorate, and for imposing on them restrictions as to the way in which they conduct their businesses, which are not imposed on private employers. The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that there was perhaps some difference. because some of these public corporations will be monopolies or will possess monopoly rights. So also in the past, and indeed today, private concerns have been either complete or virtual monopolists. The railways are a case in point. It has not hitherto been thought either necessary or desirable to restrict the powers of such private concerns, whether they were monopolies or not, to insist either that their employees should be members of unions or thart they should not. If it is right for private owners, whether it he of railways or of mines. or whatever else it may be, to have the power to impose conditions of this kind. and hon. Members opposite certainly have never sought to make it wrong, it is equally right for the public authority. or the local authority. to have similar powers. The Government are not able to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. Maude (Exeter)I should like. briefly, to follow what has been said by the Attorney-General and by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I hope it will not be thought unfair if I say that the hon. Member always starts his speeches to this House in a spirit of wonderful moderation He then goes on. rather like the cycle of the year, goaded possibly by one of my hon. Friends, to a rather charming period of indignation. That goes on for a little time. and then he passes into a marked state of exhilaration, and eventually he collapses. If I may say so. he is rather crushed. wondering whether the Committee is really going to take him seriously. The reason why I am making this point is because in Section 6 of the Trade Disputes Act. 1927—no doubt. the Attorney-General is somewhere in the Com- 994 mittee. He is not here. It is farcical. If hon. Members look at Section 6 of the Act, they will see there is something there for which one can. perfectly reasonably. fight. I cannot help asking. for instance. the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. whether he does not think it is an extremely good thing to have on the Statute Book a provision which reads like this:
It shall not be lawful for any public authority to make it a condition of the employment of any person that he shall not be a member of a trade union.Surely hon. Members on the other side will agree that that is right. What is the point of introducing a Measure to sweep away all of that? What is the point of clearing away something which must appeal to every single one of them as being right? Let me read on—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up."] I really cannot help it if the hon. Member wants to go to sleep.
§ Mr. SilvermanI want to hear.
§ Mr. MaudeIt then says:
It shall not be lawful for any local or other public authority to impose any condition upon persons employed by the authority whereby employees who are not members of a trade union are liable to be placed in any respect at a disadvantage.Who. I may fairly ask. on the other side of the Committee wants to do away with that? The hon Member for Nelson and Colne cannot get away with it very well in that way. He mutters. "All of us ". There is not one who wants to do away with that for one moment. What the hon. Members think, surely, is this, and I venture to say it is incredibly shortsighted. Because they are all there together more or less united for a few months. perhaps for some years. they think it will go on for ever. They look upon themselves as immortal; but the moment will come at last when a long white beard covers that red bow tie. No doubt. youth will be there—under the possibility of atomic energy being introduced—but others will have fallen by the wayside. and the voice of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will be a little cheeping squeak. crying for the past. for 1946. when it was thought it was perfectly all right to do away with this Trade Disputes Act of 1927. Things will have worked out very differently from what they expected. He will look back and say. "Why in the name of everything did we not at least preserve the things which 995 prevented employer … "—that is local authority employers—"… from misbehaving themselves in a way which we could not possibly imagine?"That is all I would like to say. with the exception of making this comment with regard to the point made by the Attorney-General. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] I believe the day will come when provided I am in health and strength. I shall see this Committee from the benches on the other side. I sincerely hope that when it does come, whoever is the Attorney-General will attend the Debates in order at least that it can be said that he was there in case something important was said —[Laughter] —The immortals laugh; they are very young.
§ Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)I do not propose to detain the Committee for very long. unless of course my speech is punctuated by interruptions from the other side. In that case. which no doubt is not improbable. as the hour is yet young and fortunately my health and vigour are still left to me, I shall be able to continue for a very long time. I should greatly regret that circumstance. but I feel bound to point out that this is the first speech I have been able to make today, thereby being much less fortunate than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Those of us who had fears—or hopes, I put it quite neutrally—that the scorching suns of the East, from which I understand he has just returned. might in any way have dried up the fountain of his eloquence. found themselves deceived. He favoured the Committee with his views on a large number of subjects—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanTwo.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithHe says only two, but such is the vociferous tendency of the hon. Gentleman's speech that by the time he had finished it seemed to be far more. We have a curious line-up in regard to the first of the questions which this Amendment raises; that is to say. where there is a power to direct membership to a specific trade union, as distinct from trade unions in general. On the one hand we have the Attorney-General. and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne. who is in this case the ally of the Attorney-General who. were he here. might well recall in this context the 996 remark attributed to the Duke of Wellington about his allies in the Peninsular War—
§ Mr. S. SilvermanToo old.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithToo old for the hon. Member? I am glad to see that his visit has sharpened his wits if it has not curbed his tongue. On the other side we have an equally strange combination. perhaps. We have my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. They took the view that there would be a power to direct membership to a specific trade union. As lawyers are aware, there are two sorts of authority in law. There is binding authority and there is persuasive authority. I think perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead migh,. with the Attorney-General, rank as binding authority. whereas the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour can. at best. be ranked only as persuasive authority. I do not recall at what stage of his speech on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour gave his opinion on this important question. I do not know whether it was before. or after. or in the middle of what I think in recollection he will consider his rather intemperate verbal frolic in regard to the custom of Oddenino's. but. in any event. we have one binding authority and one persuasive authority on each side. and I expect that as this Debate continues its course, we shall have further expressions of opinion as to what is in fact the law on this point.
I shall content myself on this aspect of the case with saying that in our view it would clearly be very wrong, for the reasons advanced so eloquently by various Members of the Committee, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). that there should be power to direct to a specific trade union. In making that point I am conscious that we are fortified with the opinion in this respect of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne. who is the only Member on the other side, other than the Attorney-General. so far to express an opinion on this matter.
12.45 a.m.
I pass to the other question as to the power to direct membership to trade 997 unions in general. As I see it, there can be two reasons for wishing to retain or to have the power to direct membership to trade unions in general. The first reason would be the desire to preserve reasonable standards of wages, hours and conditions of labour in the industry in volved. That is one reason. The second reason might be merely the desire to promote membership of the trade unions in general. I think the Committee will agree that these are the two reasons which might apply in this case. It it can be shown that it was necessary to have these powers in order to ensure satisfactory conditions in respect of wages hours and conditions of labour in industry. I feel that this side of the Committee would not be grudging in giving that power. But. in my submission. it is clearly not proved that this is the case.
Take the question of local authorities under Subsection (2) of Section 6. The importance of local authorities is. of course. greatly increased. since the policy of the Government placed the whole of the responsibility of the housing programme in their hands, though. in all conscience. that has been little enough as yet. In my recollection. all the standard contracts for the use of building authorities used before the war. when I was more familiar with these things. contained a fair wages clause to which a local authority had to adhere in any event. Therefore. apart from the actual machinery of trade unionism, these things were safeguarded in the case of local authority contracts. It may. as has been suggested on the other side of the Committee, be convenient to have all your employees members of a trade union. so that when an employer. be it a local authority or otherwise. negotiates with representatives of a trade union. he knows that the representative speaks on behalf of all the employees whom he is likely to employ. That is the case, as I understand it. which is put by Members on the other side. Surely it is not necessary in order to achieve what we want. that is to say the proper standards of wages. hours and conditions of labour in the industry. that men should belong to a trade union. All that is necessary is that employers. in this case the local authorities, should not employ any man at less than the wages and conditions prescribed by the industrial machinery applicable to that industry. I 998 defy any hon. Member opposite to say that. in order to achieve that desirable state of things. it is necessary for every employee to be a member of a trade union. If the trade unions are worthy of their salt. then they attract membership to themselves. and it should not be necessary for them to have compulsion.
I do not believe that employers are going to employpeople at over the rates of wages agreed by the trade unions. nor do I believe that if the Government's pledge to provide full employment means that you are likely to get employees seeking employment at less than the wages prescribed for that industry. Therefore. I say that it is not necessary to have these dictatorial powers to compel membership of trade unions in order to have a satisfactory minimum standard of wages. hours and conditions of labour. It may be that it is very desirable that employees should belong to trade unions. On the whole, I take that view myself. I am an unswerving believer in trade unionism in its industrial and social aspects. If. as I submit. it is proved that it is not necessary to have these compulsory powers in order to protect reasonable. minimum standards of hours. wages and conditions of labour. then it may be that the motive why it is desired to have these compulsory powers is the second alternative to which I have drawn attention. That is to say that the motive is to promote and stimulate the membership of trade unions.
We on this side of the Committee feel that it is wrong to promote membership by compulsory measures of this sort. We ask ourselves, not unnaturally, why it is sought to do this thing now. I suggest that the answer may be this, that it is realised by hon. Members opposite that the measures which they are taking in other parts of the Bill are calculated to diminish the popularity of the trade union movement with the working classes of this country. They realise—[Interruption.] This seems to me a sort of Box and Cox. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne has deprived us of his legal guidance. to be replaced by the learned Attorney-General. I dare say that we may expect the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) at any moment.
When that very welcome interruption came. in an evening of perhaps less wel- 999 come interruptions, I was developing a thesis that we must look. for some reason why hon. Members opposite should choose this moment to bring in a Measure for promoting membership—because that is what it comes to—of trade unions by compulsory measures. I was saying that I think we might find the clue to that in the unpopularity of other measures contained in the Bill, in particular that Section from which we parted—I cannot say all too soon, but. at any rate, in good time—in regard to a political levy. I feel that the effect of making the system of contracting out once more the law in this country will discourage young people from joining the trade unions. because. however sympathetic they may be to the industrial and social objectives of trade unionism. as. indeed. I am myself. they do not wish to feel that there is imposed upon them the obligation of contracting out or else having to pay a political levy to a party of whose policies they cannot but disapprove. Therefore, to counteract the unpopularity of these measures which they know are liable to diminish the natural voluntary flow of workers into the trade unions they come here to seek these powers to make it compulsory. That is a wrong and improper proceeding. It is in my view a breach of the ancient and traditional liberty of this country. undertaken for bad motives and it may well be with a bad conscience.
§ Sir W. DarlingThe Committee has given a great deal of consideration to many aspects of this Section. but I do not think that sufficient study has been given to its effects upon local authorities. and I venture with all humility to speak from that point of view. This provision will have a grevious effect upon what is perhaps the most ancient form of Government we know. It is older than the House of Commons, certainly older than trade unionism, and undoubtedly older than the political levy. These local authorities of ours. on which the Government with great confidence are placing such heavy responsibilities. will be riddled with dissension because of this Measure. Their usefulness will be greatly Impaired if not destroyed. I suggest there is good reason for that view. because I should like to indicate what might happen at a municipal election in the future, No longer will it take place between the blues 1000 and the reds, but it will be between the local authority which is prepared to employ a particular trade union and the local authority whose only concern is with the better government of the city or community for which it is being elected. That is the choice that will be imposed because of a narrow. greedy. sectional. self-interest. which many consider to be destructive of the body politic.
Have the Government realised that it this Measure passes it will be within the power of any local authority to make or break a trade union? A local authority can withdraw its patronage from a trade union. and the trade union wilts and disappears or becomes amalgamated with the Transport and General Workers Union. At an election an organiser of a union can get himself elected. It must be within the knowledge of hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite that things like what I am going to mention have occurred. A thrustful, competent man of affairs. like my type. leaves one of the larger unions because there is no opportunity for him and sets up in business for himself in a union. He gets elected to the local authority. and then he gets that local authority to deal with him and with his union alone. There are many experienced trade union organisers on the other side of the Corninittee as well as here who know that that has happened in the past. and will happen infinitely more in the future.
1.0 a.m.
There is another aspect of this question that has already been hinted at. There is a growing movement towards the Left, and that growing movement. as I understand from the expressions heard lately. is likely to increase amongst local authorities and even in this Chamber. That movement will patronise solely—and patronage does not exist exclusively in the ranks of privilege—approved trade unions. and where there is a movement to the Left that is the danger. What are the approved unions in the hands of this Left movement which I envisage? The approved unions are those which pay the political levy to a political party. That is the great danger which is being imparted by this Measure so far as local government is concerned. Local government has to negotiate with a number of trade unions and representatives of no trade unions at all. I know of a local 1001 authority which has to negotiate with two unions. one of which is the Transport and General Workers' union. and members of both are on this public authority's staff. That is deplorable in capitalism. but this competitive spirit in trade unionism is not a thing that should be encouraged. A local authority has to decide whether the N.U.P E. or the N.A.L.G.O. or the Transport and General Workers' Union. Or the Scottish Horse and Motorman's Union is representative. I hope that none will quash the Scottish Horse and Motorman's Union, which for thirty years has resisted the demands of the Transport and General Workers' Union. and there has been found no person within its ranks who is willing to sell his Union to the big bosses.
§ Mr. C. WilliamsCan my hon. Friend tell the Committee where this old and interesting union called the Scottish Horse and Motorman's Union works? Is it in Glasgow or Dundee?
§ Sir W. DarlingIt is in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. I believe. I am not a member of it, but I would accept such an honour with pleasure. The trade union leaders have had their pride somewhat diminished by the influx of pseudo-Socialists from Eton and Harrow. and the genuine trade union leaders are fewer in number than they used to be. but they know that this is a dangerous measure for the integrity of their unions. But most of them have reached the age of sixty. and they think this Parliament will last for four years. and so they think that will for them. They think. "Well. well. it will last for my time." and with a cynicism which I think is regrettable but understandable. they see the trade union movement handed over to disappear. You are placing them in the hands of one or two authorities. The local authorities, arrogant. contemptuous. are clearly determined to be patronising to a union of its choice, or, alternatively, to hand themselves over to that party of the Left which is now only little but will soon he recognised as the tail which substantially wags the dog.
§ Mr. John Foster (Northwich)I wish to refer to what may not unfairly be called the sole argument of the learned Attorney-General. namely. that because the law did not previously think fit to prevent an em-plover specifying the union to which an employee should belong. therefore. as he 1002 put it, the more responsible employer should not be prevented from doing so. I will come in a moment to the reasons for which I think it is right that the local authorities should be prevented from exercising this power, but there is one result from this restriction, or rather from this permission, to be given to the local authority. In the case of a closed shop an abuse may develop. It may be possible where a closed shop exists between the local authority and a particular trade union for an ex-Service man to be excluded from work.
I can give an instance where a closed shop exists between an employer and a trade union. The Amalgamated Engineering Union has had before it. both at headquarters and at a local branch. the case of a fitter in the Air Force who has served his country well and loyally. He served for 4 years and had risen to the rank of a sergeant. Throughout those 4 ½years he had been a fitter mainly engaged in the maintenance of internal combustion engines. If ever there was a man fitted to belong to that union, he is the man. He goes to the employer and says "Have you a job for me? "The employer says" Yes. we need people like you badly." But they say. "We are very sorry we cannot employ you unless you belong to the Amalgamated Engineering Union, so will you go and see their local man? "He goes and sees the local man. who says. "I have not the authority; you must go and see somebody else." He is shuffled between these two. and he then applies to headquarters. who send him back to the local man. They have nothing to learn from the run-around of Government Departments. The local man says to him finally. "I cannot O.K. you into the union because you are not in the trade." The fitter then says. "If I am not in the trade how do I get into the union? "The reply of the local man is "I cannot help that."
The result is that this man, although there is work waiting for him. cannot get the work, and he cannot get into the union because it is a vicious circle. What is worse is that this man is told by the union's local man "If I put you into the union. what am I to do with the 5o men in the Services when they come back from the Forces? "Actually there is no danger of these men being out of work. There is work for these 51 men. That is one of the evils of the closed shop. If 1003 this Amendment is not accepted it will be possible for an abuse like this to be extended into the area of local government authorities and the trade unions, whose regional or local people abuse the position. I recognise immediately that this is by no means the usual practice of trade unions. There was in the "Daily Herald," for instance. an announcement that the Electrical Trades Union had extended their privileges to ex-Servicemen. But one does find a powerful union, which has done an immense amount of good for its members. as the A.E.U. has done in the past. at this moment. when the Prime Minister has urged the importance of every source of labour when we are desperately short of these men. abusing its position in this instance—I hope it is only in this particular locality—by refusing this ex-Serviceman a job.
I said I would come to the reason why I think that the danger exists more in the case of a local authority. It is because the local authority is more subject to politics. The employer. except in rare cases. if he is perhaps a fellow traveller or a number in the Communist Party. is unlikely to make a choice between one trade union and another. An employer has usually agreed to a "closed shop "because of the representations of a strong trade union. The pressure in that case comes from the other side. If this Amendment is not accepted. if the law is not retained as it is today. it will be found that the pressure will come from the employer. from the local authority. That is why I say to the Attorney-General that that is the reason for this Amendment and that that is the reason why the law should be kept in its present form.
The Attorney-General mentioned, probably half as a joke, the trade union of the law, The reason why. in law. one insists on a person who practices belonging to one or the other branch is obviously that he has to have certain qualifications. [An HON. MEMBER: "So does an engineer."] If so. he should be a member of a trade union. just as doctors say. "We will allow no one to practise who has not studied medicine." If it is a question of apprenticeship. as in the case of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I agree that a person should be a member of a trade union. But if there are two trade unions to choose from a man should be free as to which he should choose.
§ Mr. Attewell (Harborough)Had the sergeant who desired to join the Amalgamated Engineering Union served his apprenticeship?
§ Mr. FosterNo, he had served his apprenticeship serving his country.
§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham)Would the hon. Member tell us what the trade union of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has done in this connection, how far men who have worked throughout the war on legal work, as many soldiers have done, have been admitted to his union without examination?
§ Mr. FosterThe answer is that the trade union, if you like, to which I belong. is admitting people by letting them off their examination because it feels that service to the country has been apprenticeship. but perhaps the hon. Member does not regard service to the country in that way.
§ Mr. AttewellThe Amalgamated Engineering Union are admitting numbers of such men. The hon. Member has quoted a single instance, but men are being admitted to be trained.
§ Mr. FosterThen if the hon. Member has any influence with the Amalgamated Engineering Union I beg him to persuade them to let this unfortunate man in. t is really a scandalous case. The hon. Member says that this is an isolated instance. but it is the instance I have come across. and I think I am entitled to fear that this is an instance which may occur between a local authority and the union with which it has a closed shop. So long as unions are in a position to abuse their position it is my submission that this Amendment should be accepted
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)The Attorney-General made the point that up to now private employers had not used their powers to enforce employees into unions. He, therefore. built up from that the argument that. in so far as the private employer had not done this. there was no reason to expect that public employers would do it. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to two fundamental things which are now happening. The first has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) when he referred to nationalisation. There is a second thing 1005 which is much mote important in this respect; that is the manifesto issued by the Socialist Party recently, which was "Forge the Link "—forge the link between the local authority and the central executive, This is building up to the idea that we have the local authority dependent upon the executive authority, This is the first step, as far as I can see, in giving the local authority as the employer the power to force a man to join or not to joint a union as they please, I am not at the moment arguing the rights or wrongs of an employer forcing a man to join a trade union, All I am saying is that hon. Members at the moment are giving the incentive to the local authority to do this, if they so wish, because they would then have the link between them and the central executive under this idea of executive nationalization.
Those principles alter the argument which the learned Attorney-General put up, I should very much like him, or some other Member of the Government, to explain how in the present circumstances, they are going to get away from this power they are putting into the hands of the public employer, I am in favour of the man being able to choose into which union he shall go, I do not think there is very much disagreement on that point; but I am against the power of the employer to insist either that a man shall be in a union or not in a union, That is the point I wish to put before the Committee, It is a fundamental one of difference in the present tendency of local government and central government policy, It is the centralisation of the employer under the control of the State, That is the dangerous position which this Bill, if it is not amended, will lead us into:
§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)One of the troubles with some hon. Members opposite is their great sincerity and belief that theirs is the cause of progress, We applaud their sincerity, but we cannot help but think that only too often they are defending the cause of progress today because they are defending what perhaps was the cause of progress 40 years ago, The great truth about progress is that enemies of liberty vary from generation to generation, and the enemies of liberty in each generation are almost always those who are perhaps looked upon as the saviours of liberty against previous enemies of a previous generation,
1006 It is in exactly that way that the capitalists first established themselves as the friends and saviours of the people against the feudal landlords, One could give many other examples, So today it seems to me to serve little purpose to appeal back to what was the position of the trade unions in I9I3 or still less what was the position of the trade unions in I875, What we are concerned with is a very different state of affairs, That is, what is the position of the trade unions today,
Today the enemy of liberty is quite a new one, Today, whether it be right or wrong, as we all know, if we go out into Victoria Street, we find people giving us leaflets in which they denounce not the capitalist, not the Conservative Party, but the dockers' leaders, They give us leaflets in which they denounce the dockers' union leaders on the ground that those leaders are selected, not elected, Whether that denunciation is right or wrong, I have no qualification to say, Certainly my bias is not to think that that denunciation is right, I can perfectly well understand hon. Members who come down here and make speeches to put themselves "on side," as it were, but as everybody knows, it is one of the great issues of the day as to whether, under these new circumstances, the trade union leaders will be able to maintain their position as the leaders of their movement or not, I am not saying that they should not; on the whole, I hope they will; as things stand, it would be a great evil for the country if they lost that position, But that is the issue, and that is what every hon. Member knows very well is the issue, and not the issues which are thrown up against us in defence,
My argument at the moment is simply that they will be in their own interests, making the most fatal of blunders if at this critical time in their own career and in trade union history they forget the great truth that trade unions can only survive on their own merits if they deliver the goods, in free competition against such other unions or non-unions as may be set up, If they allow themselves instead to depend upon the chance of support by the State or the local council, they will not only be digging their own personal graves, but they will be in grave danger of smashing the trade union movement, to the great detriment of the country.
§ Mr. HoggWe are now reaching perhaps the closing stages of a most interesting Debate, It has seemed to me that the salient feature of the Debate on this Amendment has been the complete failure of the learned Attorney-General to deal with the most damaging attack which has been made upon the position of the Government from below the Gangway by his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S, Silverman), It is remarkable that not one Member of the Party opposite has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and supported him as against the Attorney-General in the arguments which he has put forward, May I say at once how much I welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member, The only regret I have is that he rather characteristically seemed to lose interest in the Debate once he had made his own contribution to it, I have noticed that to be a characteristic of the hon. Member before, but I am sorry he did not wait to hear the Attorney-General's reply, which, no doubt, he would have found most inadequate, and would have found it necessary to punctuate with numerous questions of ingenious device, If there was one thing which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne proved beyond any possibility of doubt, it was that the whole approach of the Government to this difficult matter has been misconceived from the first, The hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that there may or may not be a case for the amendment of certain features of this Act, and in particular of the Section which is now under discussion; but one thing which could not be urged, if any part of his argument was justified, was the total repeal of the Section he had in mind, because he made it certain that so far as he was concerned he did not agree with any state of the law which rendered it possible for a local authority or public body to select a union in advance and say that the people employed must belong to that union, Once you have established that, the case for total repeal of this section of the Act of 1927, which is the point under discussion, completely disappears, The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne went on to say, and to say with some asperity, that we had not put down an Amendment to Section 6 of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, He sought to found an argument upon that, He sought to show that we should have 1008 done so, and that our failure to do so was some reflection upon the sincerity with which we pursued this Amendment tonight, I trust that not one Member of the Committee will be misled by that argument, The form of our Amendments has been determined by the Rules of Order, This Bill was drafted in such a form that very few Amendments could hope to be in Order, It was done deliberately to gag the House, as so many things have been done, but fortunately it did not succeed, We took the best advice we could, and spent long hours devising Amendments which would be in Order, We managed to draft very few which could get by the austere eye of the Chair, Had it been possible to put down a list of drafting Amendments, we should have done so to improve the Bill, and we should have asked for, and no doubt obtained, that support from hon. Members and the Government in full and adequate discussion of them, It was not possible to do so, and this is the only form in which we could bring this important issue before the Committee, As I have said, it was impossible, with certain exceptions, to put down Amendments which would have been in Order, If any hon. Member requires confirmation of that, he only has to observe how many of the varied selection of Amendments on the Order Paper have been called, I hope, therefore, that we shall not be hearing any more pedantic comments on the form this Amendment has taken, It has taken this form because we have been deliberately gagged by the manner in which the Bill has been drafted, it is part of the general policy of the Government to suppress free speech, To sum up this discussion, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite have not quite assessed the importance of the effects of this part of the Bill, Upon this Amendment, hon. Members have sought to approach this matterde novo, but that is not open to them, We have now to approach the Amendment from the point of view of the state of the law we created by our own action in which contracting out in the case of the political levy took the place of contracting in with particular types of contracts, It is clear that what may have been arguable before becomes unarguable now, It might have been arguable that it was legitimate to permit a local authority to impose certain 1009 conditions upon its employees, but look what is going to happen now, The local authority has a complete statutory monopoly of certain types of employment, In that respect it differs from the railway companies, It has the peculiarity that it is subject to vagaries of party politics, There is a local authority upon which the local secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union sits as a member, and who, if rejected by the electorate, will no doubt be appointed an alderman by the Socialist majority, There he will sit, and his will be the union selected,
1,30 a.m.
That is the situation, The employee, very much against his will, because he knows what is in store for him, proceeds to join the Transport and General Workers' Union, and he finds, after this Bill becomes law, that there is a political levy in force, which pays the salary, incidentally, of the Alderman who insisted that the trade union should be cemented to the local authority, and who as an hon. Member of this House, will have helped to get this Amendment rejected by his vote in the Lobby, There is a political levy, and the employee finds that he is compelled to contract out and not contract in, It may be that he lives in a part of the country which is predominently Labour or Communist, and he does not wish to reveal his political views, It may be that he is a member of the Fourth International, or of the Independent Labour Party, or a Liberal, or that he does not like politicians of any shape or colour, and he does not desire to reveal his political views because he sees from experience the great power which the co-opted alderman has over his Socialist colleagues, He does not want to contract out, but he either has to do so or to submit to his money being used for controversial political purposes with which he does not agree.
See what will happen by the rejection of this Amendment, The circle of compulsion is now completed: you complete your local body by co-option and you pay the wages of the men who secure the positions, You intimidate the member of the trade union, and you render his membership and the union compulsory, That is not democracy; that is the politics of Tammany Hall, and it is precisely because the Labour Party has developed vested interests in Tarnmanv Hall politics 1010 that some of us are going to fight all we can to beat it, [Interruption,] I understand that the hon. Gentleman is being suppressed by his Chief Whip—
§ Mr. HaleIf the hon. Gentleman will give way for a minute, may I tell him that we abolished our Whips qua Whips two or three weeks ago? It is hon. Members opposite whose bottoms are still blue with the castigations of a Margesson
§ Mr. HoggPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider in the cold light of early morning whether his remarks will carry with them the approval of his constituents or enhance the dignity of this House, In the meantime, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will not be chastised by the Chief Whip, who, we have now been told, has been abolished, His activities this evening have not led me to suppose that the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me is wholly correctly informed in this matter.
We are faced with an important decision, It is conceded that the Section which it is now proposed to remove from the Act of 1927 contains, among other things, a provision that no local authorities shall forbid by regulation its members joining a trade union, So it seems quite clear that the naked issue of principle—[Interruption,] The hon. Gentlemen will greatly assist me by not trying to interrupt my train of thought or I may have to go back a little in order to recapture it, It seems to me that it is here to come to the naked issue of principle between the two parties, We on this side of the Committee think that it should be open to the individual to decide whether in relation to a public authority he should or should not join unions in general or a particular union, We think it wrong for the public authority to interfere with the individual conscience in this matter, We do not mind whether the interference comes from the irresponsibles of the Right, who would like to make it illegal to join a trade union at all, or from the irresponsibles of the Left, all too common in this Committee, who would make them join a union, We maintain that this interference is an infringement of the right of the individual.
It is idle of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne to pretend that this Amendment if rejected would allow a local 1011 authority to impose a condition of membership or impose either membership or no membership, because, in point of fact, it will allow both, The Government would have been well advised to approach this matter in a different spirit, It is perfectly plain to my mind that there is no genuine analogy between the ordinary employer and the local authority, particularly now that the other Sections of this Act have been repealed, Nothing but an absolutely determined attempt to reject all sensible discussion on this important matter at all costs in order to achieve a machine-like result, dictated by the more irresponsible ranks behind, could have led the Attorney-General to be so determined in his opposition to this Amendment.
Mr. Piekthorn (Cambridge University)I cannot believe that hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite intend to ask the Committee to reject this Amendment without some argument, So far we have had very little argument at all, and I am a little surprised that there appears to be someone, whose identity I was unable to establish, who is unwilling to be lectured on the matter now, The only argument we have had from the other side has been the Attorney-General's argument that we must not do this to local authorities, because, if we do it to them, we will have to do it to everybody else, followed by the argument of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), into which I need not bother to go now, as at the moment he seems to be out somewhere repenting of it, I might say that it was inconsistent in itself and, to put it kindly, its upshot out of harmony with the argument of the Attorney-General, These arc all the arguments that the Committee have had, and I ask hon. Members opposite whether they really think it is consistent with the dignity of this Committee that we should be asked to proceed to a decision on this matter without having had more argument than we have had, There have been several questions up to now, none of which has been answered, and I would now wish if I may to put a few more.
With respectful admiration for the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W, Darling) and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who touched on the subject, I do not think that we have by any means 1012 exhausted the important topic of the Section now desired to be repealed as related to the earlier Sections which we have repealed and to the general upshot of the Bill, If hon. Members can recall the arguments used earlier in the day, they may remember that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W, J, Brown) had, if I may say it without offence to the majority of my opponents, more astuteness than most of them, He saw that he could not with any intellectual decency take the line which he took about the Civil Service and simultaneously take the line which the Government were taking about the Section before that one concerning the Civil Service and about the Section after it, that is to say, this present one which we are now debating, What was the argument used on this Civil Service proposition? Would one of the Attorney's neighbours please give him a small prod? I have not the advantages of a box on which to make noise enough at least to ensure sensory perception, nor the other advantages of his office, and I would rather not suffer the disadvantages of its insolence.
The argument on the Civil Service section was this, It was claimed that complete freedom in this matter was necessary to human dignity though not all civil servants would want to join a trade union, and perhaps not all would want to join the same union, and it was thought that Civil Service trade unions which wished to affiliate to outside organisations might not wish to affiliate to the T,U,C, That was the argument of the Member who advocated the Government view on the Civil Service section, But there is nothing said now that everybody should be free to join a union and to choose which union he will join, The only argument with which we are confronted is not consistent with that to which a maiority was given on the previous section, I would ask the Government whether, in the long run, it is in their interest and consistent with their dignity and future interests that a provision of this sort, which they consider of the greatest constitutional importance, should be forced upon this Committee with so little argument from that side of the House as we have had on this occasion.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 261.
1015| Division No. 119.] | AYES. | [11.40 p.m |
| Agnew, Cmdr P. G. | Herbert, Sir A. P. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
| Aitken, Hon. Max | Hogg, Hon. Q. | Pickthorn, K. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hollis, Sqn.-Ld.- M C | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hope, Lord J. | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D |
| Baldwin. A, E. | Horabin, T. L. | Prior-Palmer, Brig O |
| Baxter, A. B | Howard, Hon. A. | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bossom, A. G. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Bowen, R | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bower, N. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Renton, D. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) |
| Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan | Keeling, E. H. | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G, | Lambert, Hon. G. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Brown, W. J- (Rugby) | Langford-Holt, J. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O |
| Carson, E. | Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Linstead, H. N. | Smart Rt. Hon. J. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt-Col. G. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Conant, Maj. R J. E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (p'dd't'n, S.) |
| Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Mackeson, Lt-Col. H. R. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E. | McKie, J. H (Galloway) | Thornton-Kemsley, C-N. |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Maclay, Hon. J S | Turton, R. H. |
| Darling Sir W. Y. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T |
| Davies, Clement (Montgomery) | Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir W. W |
| De la Bère, R. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Dighy, Major S. W. | Marples, Capt. A. E. | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maude, J. C. | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Medlicolt, Brig. F. | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Drewe, C. | Mellor, Sir J. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Eccles, D. M. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Willink, Rt. Hon H U |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison:, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Nicholson, G. | |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. | TELLERS TOR THE AYES |
| Grimston, R. V. | Nutting, Anthony | Sir Arthur Young. and |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W"dbridge) | Orr-Ewing, I L. | Mr. Studholme. |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V | Osborne, C | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South) | Chamberlain, B. A. | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Champion., A. J | Farthing, W. J. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Chater, D | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Chetwynd, Capt G R | Foster, W. (Wigan) |
| Anderson, A (Motherwell) | Clitherow, Dr. R. | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Cobb, F A | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R | Cocks, F. S | Gaitskell, H. T. N. |
| Austin, H. L.. | Coldrick, W | Ganley, Mrs. C. S |
| Awbery, S. S. | Collick, P. | Gibbins, J. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Collindridge, F. | Gibson, C. W |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Collins, V. J. | Gilzean, A. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Colman, Miss G. M. | Goodrich, H. E. |
| Baird, Capt. J | Comyns, Dr. L. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Balfour, A. | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Barnas, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Corlett, Dr. J. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) |
| Barton, C | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. | Grenfell, D. R. |
| Battley, J. R. | Daggar, G. | Grierson, E. |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Daines, P. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Belcher, J. W. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly) |
| Berry, H | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Griffiths. Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) |
| Bevin. Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.) | Davies, S O. (Merthyr) | Guest, Dr. L. Haden |
| Binns, J. | Deer, G | Gunter, Capt. R. J. |
| Blackburn, A. R | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) |
| Blenkirsop, Capt. A. | Delargy, Captain H. J | Hale, Leslie |
| Boardman, H | Diamond, J. | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) |
| Bottomloy, A. G. | Dodds, N. N. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Donovan, T. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Douglas, F. C. R. | Hardman, D. R. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Driberg, T E. N. | Hardy, E. A. |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Harrison, J. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Dumpleton, C. W. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Brooks, T J. (Rothwell) | Durbin, E. F. M. | Haworth, J |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Dye, S. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Ede, Rt. Hon. J C | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Edelman, M. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Burden, T. W. | Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) | Hicks, G. |
| Burke. W. A. | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Hobson, C. R. |
| Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.) | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Holman, P. |
| Callaghan; James | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) |
| House. G. | Noel-Buxton. Lady | Stephen. C. |
| Hoy. J. | O'Brien. T. | Stewart. Capt. Michael (Fulham. E.) |
| Hudson. J. H. (Ealing. W.) | Oldfield. W. H. | Strachey. J. |
| Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen. N.) | Oliver. G. H. | Strauss. G. R. |
| Hughes. Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton. W.) | Orbach. M. | Stross. Dr. B |
| Hynd. H. (Hackney. C.) | Paling. Will T. (Dewsbury) | Stubbs. A. E. |
| Hynd. J. B. (Atterclife) | Palmer. A. M. F. | Summerskill. Dr. Edith |
| Irving. W. J. | Pargiter. G. A. | Swingler. Capt. S |
| Isaacs. Rt. Hon G. A. | Parkin. Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Symonds. Maj. A. L. |
| Janner. B. | Paton. Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Taylor. H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Jeger. Capt. G. (Winchester) | Paton. J. (Norwich) | Taylor. R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Jeger. Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras. S.E.) | Peart. Capt. T. F. | Taylor. Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Jones. D. T. (Hartlepools) | Perrins. W. | Thomas. Ivor (Keighley) |
| Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Platts-Mills. J. F. F. | Thomas. I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Keenan. W. | Popplewell. E. | Thomas. John R. (Dover) |
| Kenyon. C. | Porter. E. (Warrington) | Thomas. George (Cardiff) |
| Kinghorn. Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Pritt. D. N. | Thomson. Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh. E.) |
| Kinley. J. | Proctor. W. T. | Thorneycroft. H. (Manchester. C.) |
| Kirby. B V. | Pursey. Cmdr. H. | Tiffany. S. |
| Lang. G. | Ranger. J. | Timmons. J. |
| Lavers. S. | Rankin. J. | Titterington. M. F. |
| Leslie, J. R. | Rees-Willlams. Lt.-Col. D. R. | Tolley. L |
| Levy. B. W. | Reeves. J. | Tomlinson. Rt. Hon. G |
| Lewis. A. W. J. (Upton) | Reid. T. (Swindon) | Usborne. Henry |
| Lindgren. G. S. | Rhodes. H. | Vernon. Maj. W. F. |
| Lipton. Lt.-Col. M. | Ridealgh. Mrs. M | Walkden. E. |
| Longden. F. | Robens. A. | Walker. G. H. |
| Lyne. A. W. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Wallace. H. W. (Walthamstow. E.) |
| McAdam. W | Robertson. J. J. (Berwick) | Warbey. W. N |
| McAllister. G | Rogers. G. H. R. | Weitzman. D. |
| .McGhee. H. G. | Sargood. R. | Wells. P. L. (Faversham) |
| Mack. J. D. | Scollan. T. | Wells. W. T (Walsall) |
| McKay. J. (Wallsend) | Scott-Elliot. W. | White. H. (Derbyshire. N.E.) |
| Mackay. R. W. G. (Hull. N.W.) | Segal. Dr. S. | Whiteley. Rt. Hon. W |
| Maclean. N. (Govan) | Shackleton. Wing-Com. E. A. A. | Wilcock. Group-Capt. C A. B |
| McLeavy. F. | Sharp. Lt.-Col. G. M. | Wilkes. Maj. L. |
| Macpherson. T. (Romford) | Shawcross. C. N. (Widnes) | Wilkins. W A. |
| Mallalieu. J. P. W. | Shawcross. Sir H. (St. Helens) | Willey. F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Manning. C. (Camberwell. N.) | Shurmer. P. | Willey. O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Manning. Mrs. L. (Epping) | Silverman. J. (Erdington) | Williams. D. J. (Neath) |
| Marquand. H. A. | Silverman. S. S. (Nelson) | Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Marshall. F. (Brightside) | Simmons. C. J. | Williams. W R. (Heston) |
| Mathers. G. | Skeffington. A. M. | Williamson. T. |
| Mayhew. C. P. | Skeffington-Lodge. T C | Willis. E. |
| Middleton. Mrs. L. | Skinnard. F W. | Wills. Mrs. E. A. |
| Mitchison. Maj. G. R. | Smith. Capt. C. (Colchester) | Wilmot. Rt. Hon. J |
| Monslow. W. | Smith. Ellis (Stoke) | Wilson. J. H. |
| Morgan. Dr. H. B. | Smith. H. N. (Nottingham. S.) | Wise. Major F. J |
| Morris. P. (Swansea. W.) | Smith. T. (Normanton) | Woodburn. A. |
| Morrison. Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.) | Snow. Capt. J. W. | Woods. G. S. |
| Moyle. A. | Solley. L. J. | Yates. V. F. |
| Nally. W | Sorensen. R. W. | Younger. Hon Kenneth |
| Neal. H. (Claycross) | Soskice. Maj. Sir F. | Zilliacus. K |
| Nichol. Mrs. M. E. (Bradford. N.) | Sparks. J. A | TELLERS POR THE NOES: |
| Nicholls. H. R. (Stratford) | Stamford. W | Mr. Pearson and |
| Noel-Baker. Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Steele. T | Captain Bing |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hope, Lord J. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Aitken, Hon. Max. | Howard, Hon. A. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry). |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. |
| Astor, Hon. M | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O |
| Baldwin. A. E. | Jarvis, Sir J. | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bossom, A. C | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Bowen, R | Keeling, E. H. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bower, N. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Langford-Holt, J. | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Bromley-Davanport, Lt.-Col. W. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H | Ross, Sir R. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Carson, E. | Linstead, H. N. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Channon, H. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Studholme, H. G |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. O. E | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Thornton-Kentsley, C. N. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Turlon, R. H. |
| De la Bère, R. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Digby, Major S. W. | Marples, A. E. | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maude, J. C. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Medlicott, Brig. F. | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Eccles, O. M. | Mellor, Sir J. | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison, Maj J. G. (Salisbury) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Glossop, C. W- H. | Nicholson, G. | Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. |
| Grimslon, R. V. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Nutting, Anthony | |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V | Osborne, C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Hogg, Hon Q | Peto, Brig. C. H. M | Sir Arthur Young and |
| Hollis, M. C. | Pickthorn, K | Mr. Drewe |
| NOES | ||
| Adams, Capt. Richard (Balham) | Collick, P. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Collindridge, F. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Collins, V. J. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) |
| Allan, A. C. (Bosworth) | Colman, Miss G. M. | Grenfell, D. R. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Comyns, Dr. L. | Grierson, E. |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Attewell, H. C | Corlett. Dr. J. | Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) |
| Austin, H. L. | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. | Guest, Dr. L. Haden |
| Awbery, S. S. | Daggar, G. | Gunter, Capt. R. J. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Daines, P. | Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wyoombe) |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Hale, Leslie |
| Baird, Capt. J. | Davies, Edward (Burslam) | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.. | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Barton, C. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Hardman, D. R |
| Berry, H | Deer, G. | Hardy, E. A. |
| Bing, Capl. G. H. C. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Harrison, J. |
| Binns, J. | Delargy, Captain H. J | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Diamond, J. | Haworth, J. |
| Boardman, H. | Dodds, N. N | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
| Botlomley, A. G. | Douglas, F. C. R. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Bowdcn, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Driberg, T. E. N | Hobson, C. R. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Holman, P. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Dumpleton, C. W | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) |
| Braddook, T. (Mitcham) | Durbin, E. F. M. | Horabin, T. L |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Dye, S. | House, G. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Ede, Rt. Hon J C | Hoy, J. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Edelman, M. | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Burden, T. W. | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Hynd, J. B. (Atlercliffe) |
| Burke, W. A. | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Irving, W. J. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Evans, S N. (Wednesbury) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. |
| Callaghan, James | Farthing, W. J. | Janner, B. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Jeger, G. (Winchester) |
| Chamberlain, R. A | Foster, W. (Wigan) | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) |
| Champion, A. J | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Jones, D T. (Hartlepools) |
| Chater, D. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Jones, Asterley (Hitchln) |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G. R | Gaitskell, H. T. N. | Keenan, W. |
| Clitherow, Dr. R. | Ganley, Mrs. C. S | Kenyon, C. |
| Cobb, F. A | Gibbins, J. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E |
| Cocks, F. S | Gibson, C W | Kinley, J. |
| Coldrick, W. | Gilzean. A | Lang, G. |
| Lavers, S. | Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Leslie, J. R- | Popplewell, E. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Levy, B. W. | Porter, E. (Warrington). | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Pritt, D. N. | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Proctor, W. T. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Longden, F. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Lyne, A. W. | Ranger, J. | Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| McAllister, G. | Rankin, J. | Tiffany, S. |
| McGhee, H. G. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Timmons, J. |
| Mack, J. D. | Reeves, J. | Tolley, L. |
| McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Ridealgh, Mrs. M | Usborne, Henry |
| McLeavy, F. | Robens, A. | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Macpherson, T. (Romford). | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Walkden, E. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Walker, G. H. |
| Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.). | Sargood, R. | Wallace, H. W. (Walthantstow, E.) |
| Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping). | Scollan, T. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Marshall, F. (Brightside). | Segal, Dr. S. | Weitzman, D. |
| Mathers, G. | Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G M. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Shurmer, P. | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Monslow, W | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Wilkes, Maj. L. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Simmons, C. J. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Moyle, A. | Skeffington, A. M. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Nally, W. | Skinnard, F. W. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | Williamson, T. |
| Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Smith, T. (Normanton) | Willis, E. |
| Noel-Buxton, Lady | Snow, Capt. J. W. | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
| O'Brien, T. | Solley, L. J. | Wilson, J. H. |
| Oldfield, W. H. | Sorensen, R. W. | Wise, Major F. J. |
| Oliver, G. H. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. | Woodburn, A. |
| Orbach, M. | Sparks, J. A. | Woods, G. S. |
| Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Steele, T. | Yates, V. F. |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Pargiter, G. A. | Stross, Dr. B. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T. | Stubbs, A. E. | |
| Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Summerskill, Dr. Edith | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Paton, J. (Norwich) | Swingler, Capt. S. | Mr. Joseph Henderson and |
| Pearson, A. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. | Captain Blenkinsop |
| Peart, Capt. T. F. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | |
| Perrins, W. | Taylor, R. J (Morpeth) |
Mr. W, S, MorrisonOn a point of Order, Could you inform us, Mr. Beaumont, as to what Business we are discussing at the moment? We have had a Division, as I understand the position, on the first of the two Amendments that have been discussed together, namely, the insertion at the beginning of line 5, in page 1, of the words:
With the exception of subsections (1) and (3) of section six ".For the convenience of the Committee, and in order to shorten our proceedings, already protracted, we agreed that a discussion on the two Amendments together might save time, I can conceive that there may be Members of the Committee who would have voted against our Amendment in the form of excepting Subsections (1) and (3) who might, on reconsideration, be disposed to vote with us if the words:With the exception of subsections (2) and (3) of section six ".An hon. Member might very well have a rooted objection to Subsection (1), 1016 though being in general agreement with the principle for which we are contending, which would not prevent him from voting against the exclusion of Subsections (2) and (3), We might just divide on the second Amendment, I agree that the discussion has been reasonably long.
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)I was not intending to deprive the Committee of the opportunity to divide, Far be it from me to do that, Both Amendments were called together and I simply wanted a formal moving.
The Amendment is, in page I, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
With the exception of subsection (2) of section six ".
§ The Deputy-ChairmanSubsection (3) has already been decided.
§ Mr. J.S. C. ReidI beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
With the exception of subsection (2) of section six ".
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
1018§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 106, Noes, 259
1019| Division No. 121 | Ayes | 11.57 a.m |
| Aitken, Hon. Max. | Hollis, M. C. | Pickthorn K |
| Amory, D. Healhcoat | Hope, Lord J. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Howard, Hon. A. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) |
| Baldwin A. E. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W) | Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. |
| Bossom, A. C | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Bowen, R. | Jarvis, Sir J | Ramsay, Maj. S |
| Bower, N | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Rayner, Brig. R |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A | Lambert, Hon. G | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead) |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Langtord-Holt, J. | Roberts, Sq.-Udr. Emrys O. (Mrion'th) |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Law, Rt Hon. R. K. | Roberts, Maj. P G (Ecclesal) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G- T. | Legge-Bourks Maj. E. A. H | Ropner, Col. L |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Lennox-Boyd, A T. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Carson, E. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Smithers, Sir W |
| Channon, H. | Linstead, H. N. | Spearman, A C. M. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G | Low, Brig. A- R. W | Strauss, H. G (Com. Eng. Universities) |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Stuart, Rt Hon. J. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H | Studholme, H G |
| Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | McKie, J. H (Galloway) | Taylor, C S. (Eastbourne) |
| Cuthberi, W. N. | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| De la Bère, R. | Macpherson Maj, N. (Dumfries) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Digby, Major S. W | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Turton, R. H. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Marples, Capt. A. E. | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maude, J. C. | Wakefield, Sir W. W. |
| Drewe, C | Medlicott, Brig. F | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Ecclcs, D M. | Mellor, Sir J. | Ward, Hon. G. R. |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | White, J. B. (Canterbury) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Morrison, Rt. Hn W S (Cirencester) | Williams, C (Torquay) |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Nicholson, G | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Grimston, R V. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Wedbridge) | Nutting, Anthony | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V | Osborne, C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Hogg, Hon. Q | Peto, Brig. C. H M | Sir Arthur Young and |
| Commander Agnew | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Clitherow, Dr. R. | Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.) |
| Adams W. T (Hammersmith, South) | Cobb, F. A. | Foster, W. (Wigan) |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Cocks, F. S | Freeman, Maj. J (Watford) |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Coldfrick W | Freeman, Peter (Newport) |
| Alpass, J H. | Colliok, P | Gaitskell, H. T. N. |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Collindridge, F | Ganley, Mrs. C S |
| Attewell, H. C | Collins, V. J | Gibbins, J. |
| Austin, H. L | Colman, Misa G. M. | Gibson, C. W |
| Awbery, S S | Comyns, Dr. L. | Gilzean, A. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W) | Gordon-Walker, P. C. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Corlett, Dr. J. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Baird, Capt. J | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) |
| Barton, C | Daggar, G. | Grenfell, D. R. |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Daines, P. | Grierson, E. |
| Berry. H. | Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) |
| Bing, Capt. G. H. C | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) |
| Binns, J | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Guest, Dr. L. Haden |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Gunter, Capt R J. |
| Boardman, H | Davies, S O (Merthyr) | Haire, Fl.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Deer, G | Hale, Leslie |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Hall, W G. (Colne Valley) |
| Bowles, F G (Nuneaton) | Delargy, Captain H. J | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'p'l, Exeh'ge) | Diamond, J. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Dodds, N. N | Hardman, D R |
| Brook, D (Halifax) | Douglas, F C. R. | Hardy, E. A. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Driberg, T. E. N | Harrison J. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Hastings, Dr. Somervillis) |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Dumpleton, C. W. | Haworth, J. |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T | Durbin, E. F. M | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) |
| Burden, T. W | Dye, S. | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Burke. W A | Ede, Rt Hon. J C | Hobson, C. R. |
| Butler, H W (Hackney, S.) | Edelman, M. | Holman, P. |
| Callaghan, James | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) |
| Castle, Mrs. B, A. | Edwards, N (Caerphilly) | Horabin, T L |
| Chamberlain, R. A | Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel) | House, G. |
| Champion, A J | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Hoy, J. |
| Chater, D. | Evans, S N. (Wednesbury) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G R | Farthing, W. J. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle) | Palmer, A. M. F. | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Irving, W. J. | Pargiter, G. A. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A | Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Janner, B. | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Taylor, Dr. S (Barnet) |
| Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) | Pearson, A. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Peart, Capt. T. F | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Perrins, W. | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Keenan, W. | Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Kenyon, C. | Popplewell, E. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Porter, E. (Warrington). | Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| Kinley, J. | Pritt, D. N. | Tiffany, S. |
| Lang, G. | Prostor, W. T. | Timmons, J. |
| Lavers, S. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Tolley, L |
| Leslie, J R. | Ranger, J. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G |
| Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Rankin, J. | Usborne, Henry |
| Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Rees-Williams, D. R. | Vernon, Maj. W F. |
| Longden, F. | Reeves, J. | Walkden, E. |
| Lyne, A W. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Walker, G. H. |
| McAllister, G. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| McGhee, H. G. | Robens, A. | Warbey, W. N. |
| Mack, J. D. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Weitzman, D. |
| McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W) | Sargood, R. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| McLeavy, F | Scollan, T. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Macpherson, T. (Romford). | Segal, Dr. S. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A. | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.). | Sharp, Lt.-Gol. G. M. | Wilkes, Maj. L. |
| Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping). | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Marshall, F. (Brightside). | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Mathers, G. | Shurmer, P. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Simmons, C. J. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Mitchison. Maj. G. R. | Skeffington, A. M. | Williamson, T. |
| Monslow, W. | Skinnard, F. W. | Willis, E. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) | Wilson, J. H |
| Moyle, A. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | Wise, Major F. J. |
| Nally, W. | Smith, T. (Normanton) | Woodburn, A. |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Snow, Capt. J. W | Woods, G. S |
| Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Solley, L. J | Yates, V. F. |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Sorensen, R. W. | Younger, Hon Kenneth |
| Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Noel-Buxton, Lady | Sparks, J. A. | |
| O'Brien, T. | Steele, T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Oldfield, W. H. | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) | Mr. Joseph Henderson and |
| Oliver, G. H. | Stross, Dr. B. | Captain Blenkinsop |
| Orbach, M. | Stubbs, A. E. |
§ Mr. W. S. MorrisonI beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert:
With the exception of Subsection (4) of Section six,Subsection (4), which is the subject matter of this Amendment, raises a topic of very great interest in these times of vast and rapidly increasing public services, I think that I can best serve the Committee by way of initiating this discussion, which I hope will be thorough, by reading the Subsection in the Act:(4) There shall he added to Section five of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the following provision, that is to say:—If any person employed by a local or other public authority wilfully breaks a contract of service with that authority, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to cause injury or danger or grave inconvenience to the community, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment not exceeding three months,1020 That refers us back to the early Act which is still the foundation of trade union law, namely, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which, in general, relieved trade unions from any fear of criminal prosecution for their lawful activities, With the consent of everyone at the time—so far as the literature at the period offers any clue to prevailing sentiments—it was deemed wise to exempt from this general legalisation of trade union activities, the activities of those engaged in the vital services of the time, namely, water supply and gas, It was made an offence for workers in those two necessary industries to cease work in circumstances which would threaten the community served by those public services with grave inconvenience and injury, Later, to the list of essential industries to which that particular provision applied, was added the supply of electricity by the Electricity Act of 19I9, and until the passage of the Act of 1927, the repeal of 1021 which we are now considering, those three services of gas, water and electricity were protected in the way which I have mentioned.With the growth of public services since the early Victorian days of which I have spoken, it became necessary to extend the same protection to those services as was previously confined to the only two which then existed, namely, gas and water, and the Subsection, which it is the object of this Amendment to retain, applies the protection of the original Section, under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, to all those services run by a local or public authority, the sudden interruption of which might cause inconvenience and injury.
The matter becomes increasingly important with the increased provision of public services, now considered necessitie, which, at the time of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, would have been considered the wildest luxuries, These things are necessities of our lives today, A vast health service has grown up, and we are promised, or threatened, with increasing public services in the months and years that lie immediately ahead, It, therefore, clearly becomes a most vital necessity to consider where we stand in relation to those industries and services, because the more they are centralised the more vulnerable they become to a lightning strike, the Blitzkreig of industrial warfare, If we are to have inland transport all brought under one head—a Board or public authority of some sort—it is clear that a lightning strike, aimed at the heart of the industry, may paralyse the whole of the transport of the country in a short time, The time has come when we should be very sure that we give protection to the vital services from the incalculable loss, damage and inconvenience which would result from a sudden stoppage of these industries.
2.15 am.
I would ask the Committee to notice, too, that the industries which are to get the protection of this Subsection are not all the industries, but only those run by local authorities and public bodies, All the mass prejudice which has arisen around privately owned industry does not arise in this case, As hon. Member opposite claim that local authorities are always farseeing, just, clement, and perfect in their relations with their employees, there 1022 is less excuse for a lightning strike of that character which damages the community, Every day as we are being urged to take out of private control, conduct and management the great industries of this land and entrust them to the public boards, the argument is advanced that a public board is somehow more humane and just and more democratic, in the true sense of that much abused word, than private enterprise, If this argument in favour of a public board and local authority be true, then there is less excuse for strikes and breaches of contract.
The second point, which is of importance is that this Subsection, the retention of which we are seeking, does not in any way deprive the man of the right to withhold his labour, It only makes the reasonable demand that, if he chooses to withdraw his labour, he should give notice to that effect, so that the public body or the local authority charged with a service to the public would have some time in which to make their own arrangements to continue to serve the public when there is a public necessity, So it cannot be said that this in any way hampers the fundamental right of a man to withdraw his labour, It only asks that he should give notice in the case of those vital industries, so that the public welfare and the safety of the community shall not be endangered, Taking these points together, one would have thought that with authorities so enlightened and so free from taint, which has been a stain on private industry in some minds, there would have been no excuse at all for any harsh or arbitrary action by those employed in the industry, and, secondly, that there would have been no hardship in this request that when workers intended to withdraw their labour they should give notice of their intention to do so.
There is another aspect of the modern situation, which needs a little more attention at this time than perhaps at any time previously, I have mentioned already one of those causes which should be emphasised, namely, the growing centralisation of these services, The argument has been advanced throughout the various disputations we have had over this Bill that it is not necessary nowadays to legislate to compel trade unions to behave hi a reasonable way, The argument has been advanced that trade unionism has grown up from its early ways and must be trusted with infinite powers, extending 1023 to all the concerns and facts of liberty that can be imagined, because trade unions are so constituted and so imbued with a high and lofty devotion to the public service that they will not abuse the widest powers which Parliament elects to give them.
§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I submit that the habits, behaviour and characteristics of trade unionism are entirely irrelevant to the matter which the Committee are considering?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe right hon Gentleman is strictly in Order.
§ Mr. W. S. MorrisonI think the hon. Gentleman could have saved himself the trouble, and the Committee this lapse of time, if he had waited to see how I was going to connect the argument I was using with the main purpose of this Amendment. I should like to make it plain; and I shall have to go back a little.
I was considering the argument that there is really no longer any need for coercive or regulative legislation because the trade unions are all such good boys that we can allow them all the liberty in the world without their doing anything wrong. Having assumed that, I can well imagine the argument being used in this way. The trade unions are careful of the public welfare, and they would not allow any gas, or water, or public health undertaking to he stopped in a sudden way because their own sense of public duty would make them recoil, and—
§ Mr. BlackburnOn a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Is not the matter which the Committee are now discussing the repeal of Subsection (4) of Section 6 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1927?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI really think that if the hon. Member will allow the right hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, we will then discover whether he is in Order or not.
§ Mr. MorrisonI was saying that if one could rely upon these great public undertakings necessary to the health of the community being entirely in the hands of men who would follow the distinterestedness and advice of the official trade unions, then there might be less need for a provision of this sort which is binding on 1024 the man. But, we have seen the lightning strike, and the unofficial strike, both against the wishes of the trade unions. The Attorney-General took occasion during the weekend to make a speech in the country to draw attention to the fact of the unofficial strike against the trusted means of settlement by the trade unions; but if we have this great public service at the mercy of unofficial strikes, surely, we should frown on them. The trade unions can use against the lightning strike for those young men who might be cajoled and coerced, the statement, "This is against the law." These leaders are leading us along an illegal path. [An HON. MEMBER: "Up the garden path. "] Up the garden path, if the hon. Member likes. But it is a particular type of garden. It is what is called by Shakespeare the "primrose path." And I find myself not conscious of any difference of opinion from the vast majority of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I start from the standpoint which was given such eloquent expression over the weekend by the Attorney-General when he said that the unofficial strike is a bad thing which impairs the good relations between employers and employees and destroys the laboriously built up organisation which works for the good of the nation. It is folly at this time when trade unions are being threatened with unaccustomed upheavals to cast aside rudely the protection, the bulwark by way of argument, which the retention of this subsection would afford.
§ Mr. HaworthWould the right hon. Gentleman describe this as a protection and a bulwark? Would he say in what way the country was able to make use of this protection in the last unofficial strike in Liverpool?
§ Mr. MorrisonWas that in a gas works?
§ Mr. HaworthIt was not in the House of Commons. It was on the Liverpool Docks, which are a public corporation. This Clause would apply; but was it of any use in preventing that unofficial strike?
§ Mr. MorrisonI was not aware of that case. I do not pretend to be aware of all the circumstances of that dispute, but from the short and condensed account the hon. Member has given me, I would say that the position of those who were trying to deter the unofficial strikers from their 1025 wrong action would have been stronger if they had brought this Section to their attention, assuming that this was a strike to which this Section would apply. How the law might apply is another matter. One would need to know all the circumstances before one could answer that. We could have the best laws in the world, but if they were administered feebly or inefficiently we could not expect good results from them. But that is no reason for supporting bad law.
§ Mr. Haworth1927, for instance?
§ Mr. MorrisonAs regards gas and water, this is older than 1927. It goes away back to 1875. The principle of it is that people in charge or working one of these publicly owned, or local authority owned, public services are in a special category apart from ordinary men in industrial disputes. This is a well established principle which has worked very well for a long time. I would end on this note. I do not think there is anything very much against the principle which I have been enunciating which does not fall into line with the opinions of all those who view with some gravity the present phase through which we are passing in industrial organisation. If I can win a little support for my Amendment from hon. Members opposite, I would not hesitate to say that the principle in Subsection (4) which we are trying to retain on the Statute Book is perhaps Socialism in its proper sense, in that it seeks to put the good of the community first over other interests. It does this in every case where the action complained of is against the interests of the community, endangers it, or causes inconvenience or injury to the community.
2.30 a.m.
We have heard, time and time again, eloquent speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the great ideals which they no doubt hold, all to the same point, that the ordinary individual is such a wicked creature that he must be controlled in the interests of the community. He is controlled when he is, perhaps, an employer who has done his best to give employment in the industry of the country and to meet some publicly felt need, through the ordinary means of enterprise. But he must be controlled. Here I am asking hon. Gentlemen opposite to continue the salutary control of men whose avowed object is, or, rather, whose 1026 object must be, injurious to the community, by stopping some of its essential services, on which the health and good feeling, as well as the actual safety of the community, may so often depend. This subsection which we are seeking to retain is merely the extension to a wider field of a principle that was originally in the 1875 Act. In my view, the Committee would be wise to accept the Amendment, which seeks to protect the community against persons who have so little regard for the functions they discharge in ministering to its activities that they would lightly break their contract, and put the community in peril and discomfort.
§ Colonel RopnerWhen we were dealing with another Section of the 1927 Act, I asked the Government certain questions, and, needless to say, those questions were not answered. I will try again. I will ask the same question that I asked in respect of a preceding Section of the 1927 Act. What, in the view of the Labour Party, is wrong with the law as it stands at present? [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is rotten."] I must confess that I have every sympathy with the remarks that have been made by my right hon. Friend who initiated the Debate on this Amendment. It appears to us that the whole object of this Subsection which is under discussion is to protect the rights of the community. It must be made clear to hon. Members opposite, if they misunderstand the provisions of this Subsection, that it does not, and never has prevented the right to strike, by employees of local authorities. It tries to provide against the wilful breaking of a contract where that will lead to injury or damage to the community.
§ Mr. HaworthOr inconvenience. Does the hon. and gallant Member know of any strike which has not caused inconvenience to some people?
§ Colonel RopnerMy right hon. Friend who opened this Debate read the Subsection. If the hon. Member opposite has forgotten its provisions I will read it again:
Any person employed by a local or other public authority.…" [Interruption.]
§ Mr. HoggOn a point of Order. Is it in Order for hon. Members opposite to recite in unison with my hon. and gallant Friend? I am very anxious to hear the 1027 words in this Subsection, and it considerably interferes with my ability to hear what is going on behind me if a chorus of my hon. Friends opposite is chanting it.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanWith regard to that point of Order, I must say there was something like a chorus.
§ Mr. CallaghanOn a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. and gallant Member would speak a little more loudly? We are most anxious to follow this argument.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThere will be no need for the hon. and gallant Member to speak loudly if no other Member of the Committee is speaking at the same time.
§ Mr. Charles WilliamsIs it in Order, Mr. Beaumont, for the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) to accuse the hon. Gentlemen opposite of chanting in unison, when they are quite incapable of acting together?
§ Mr. Austin (Stretford)Further to that point of Order, may I say that if my hon. Friends were reciting in unison with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was due to their anxiety that he should avoid the "swindling" vernacular which he used earlier?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanMay I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should continue with his speech? May we have the solo without the chorus?
§ Colonel RopnerWhen I addressed the Committee earlier in the afternoon I had to remind them—
§ Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)On a point of Order. Surely we have got on to the next day now.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThat is not a point of Order.
§ Colonel RopnerI would remind the Committee—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] The interruptions take up considerably more time than I would take with my speech if I were allowed to proceed. Hon. Members opposite so often misrepresent what the 1927 Act actually did that I venture to remind the hon. Member who orginally interrupted me of what Subsection (4) of this Act says—
§ Mr. HaworthOn a point of Order. I have a copy of the Act in front of me. It is not necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to remind me of it.
§ Colonel RopnerIt is quite obvious from previous remarks that the hon. Member has not read the Subsection, even if he has' a copy of the Act in his hand. That being the case, I venture to remind him and other hon. Members of the Committee of what the Subsection says The Subsection is as follows:
§ " Any person employed by the local authority—" [Interruption.]
§ Mr. HoggOn a point of Order. I ventured, Mr. Beaumont, a few moments ago to direct your attention to the fact that several hon. Members opposite persisted in chanting this Subsection in unison with my hon. and gallant Friend. As I explained before, it is particularly my desire to hear these words.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanUp to the present the Chair has been very lenient. I should hesitate to become severe May I suggest that we now proceed with the business, and allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say what he wishes to say.
§ Colonel RopnerThank you for your protection, Mr. Beaumont. I had got as far as this:
having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequence of his action either alone or in combination with others will be to cause injury or danger or grave inconvenience to the community.The original interrupter was kind enough to remind me of the word "inconvenience."
§ Mr. HaworthI accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's apology.
§ Colonel RopnerI was not at all conscious of the fact that I had apologised. The Subsection goes on:
Shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months." [Interruption.]
§ Colonel RopnerThose of us who have had experience of a number of so-called all-night Sittings know that between two and three o'clock we go through a sort of silly season. Serious contributions to our Debates are apt to be greeted with hilarity. I hope we may live through this season. I just want to say in conclusion that the "lightning strike," as it is called, the strike which breaks a contract, and moreover the strike which 1029 endangers Or damages the community, may not be an official strike. It may be an unofficial strike. I am not in the least impressed by the argument, which I think was advanced by an hon. Member opposite by way of an interruption, that we should legalise something which the law has not been found strong enough to deal with. In a case such as he had in mind, it is a fact; I think it is true that the law was not called into effect to deal with a dockers' strike at Liverpool. I believe that is what he said. But that can be no argument for doing away with the law. We have been reminded this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which day? "]—we were reminded yesterday, that one does not do away with the law against murder—[HON MEMBERS: Or swindling."]—just because murders do occur. I add my appeal to that which has already been made: that the Government should accept this Amendment and allow Subsection (4) to remain as the law of this country.
§ 2.45 a.m.
§ Mr. Charles WilliamsI sympathise with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I realise that in this Subsection there are quite a number of words which they do not like, having quite a number of meanings which they naturally rather resent. I am not sure that apart from the main principle, which I will come to in a moment, this Subsection is not really the sole reason why they wish to abolish this very excellent Act. The first line is pretty well all right. There is nothing to worry about there. In the second line, we begin with the word "conspiracy." That is really one of the important words of the Subsection, and it naturally worries hon. Members opposite. Conspiracy to do what—to suppress Members on this side to unseat the Foreign Secretary—
§ Mr. BlackburnIs it in Order for an hon. Member to seek to psycho-analyze hon. Members on this side of the Committee?
The Deputy ChairmanThe hon. Member was speaking in such low tones that I had difficulty in hearing what he said.
§ Mr. C. WilliamsI was hoping that I was fairly clear. I had no idea of proceeding to apply to the hon. Member those very long words which he so ill pronounced. I am entitled to say why there is opposition in many quarters to this pro- 1030 posal. Then we come to the next words, protection of property." Could there be anything more likely to worry hon. Members on the other side? Naturally, many of them do not mind so much because they have become plutocrats. To return to the main principle, namely, whether people are going to break contracts, and cause grave inconvenience to the community, we have always laid down, and I believe it has been a British belief up to the time of this Government, that there is such a thing as sanctity of contract in our ordinary conduct of everyday life in the community. If hon. Members opposite would put aside party politics for a little while, I believe that many of them would agree with that. That is the first reason why we say, if a contract of this sort is entered into, it should undoubtedly be kept. I do not expect any sympathy from hon. Members opposite. It is rot the sort of thing with which they would sympathise. But I object to contracts being broken which would have a bad effect and inconvenience the community. Hon. Members opposite jeered just now, and I know they would jeer at anything which inconvenienced the community. None of these are reasons which would appeal to hon. Members opposite, and naturally they would not appeal to the two hon. and learned Members on the Front Bench, because lawyers do not mind how much they inconvenience other people. I, of course, except learned Members on this side of the Committee, but I may have to include them too, if they prove too noisy and interrupt me too much. There is an Amendment which I think might seasonably be made at the end of this Subsection. [Interruption.] I do not like interruptions.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman says that he does not like interruptions. If he will forgive me for interrupting him, I would remind him that we cannot now consider amending the law as he proposes.
§ Mr. WilliamsI very much regret that I should have suggested an Amendment, and I regret for the reasons which I have given that so far as I am advised up to the present, in spite of a brilliant speech from our Front Bench, and one or two other speeches, I really do not know exactly how I shall vote.
§ Mr. HoggIf there were any fact required to justify the action of the 1031 right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), some three hours ago, in moving to report Progress, it would be the way in which this Amendment has been discussed. It is inevitable that if we are kept up all night by the attitude of the Government—
§ Mr. BlackburnMay I submit that what the hon. Gentleman is now saying is irrelevant to the matter under discussion?
§ Mr. HoggI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, at the moment, I think that I must pursue the point which I originally intended to pursue. There is, of course, no blame to be attached to either side of this Committee. It is inevitable that if Parliamentary procedure is abused, so as to prolong a serious discussion into the small hours of the morning, the Committee will lapse from time to time into moods of hilarity.
§ The Chairman (Major Milner)Will the hon. Member confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee?
§ Mr. HoggI was trying to draw the attention of the Committee to the way in which it had been received. If we had been allowed to discuss this at a reasonable hour, a most serious question would have been given serious discussion by the Committee. We have to thank the Government and their abuse of the Rules of the House for the somewhat hilarious and unworthy manner in which this serious question has been discussed. Therefore, I attach not the slightest blame tc hon Members opposite. On the contrary I realise, as no doubt they will agree, that it is the Government we must thank for these proceedings which are unworthy of the House of Commons. I turn now to a certain reason for which I support this Amendment. I must ask the Committee to forgive me, because it involves relating a story out of my own experience that has the merit of being true.
Mr. Shunner (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)A bedtime story?
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman sitting apposite would have been sent to bed long ago but for the Government. This involves a story which is not only true, but relevant to the present discussion. In order to tell it I must take the Com- 1032 mittee back to the year 1926, the year of the general strike. In that year, the general strike was called. Even the Trades Union Congress and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now grace the Front Bench opposite were not so irresponsible as to call out those charged with the important duty of collecting the salvage and rubbish from the cities and towns of our country.
§ Mr. ShurmerThey left some behind.
§ Mr. HoggIn spite of that fact, the dustmen in one London county borough, that of St. Marylebone, decided to come out on strike, disregarding the orders of their union and the direction of the Trades Union Congress. They came out, they said, to show their feelings for the miners. Nobody would justify that action. It was a most deplorable and dangerous thing to do. They said they had come out in support of the miners, but exactly how they were showing their sympathy with the miners by giving the citizens of St. Marylebone typhoid fever, is not quite clear. This fact has a direct bearing on the Amendment we are now considering. Those dustmen deliberately endangered the health of the community for some silly, Socialistic, illogical reason of their own, which nobody understood. The part which I played in the events of 1926 was a very humble one, and consisted in trying to organise the collection of refuse from an important London borough. [Laughter.] In spite of the late hour, I see nothing which is a subject for hilarity about that. The situation in that borough was becoming alarming. Although I will not pretend my work was outstanding it was extremely useful, and I have somewhere in my archives a curious illuminated address from the chief magistrate of the borough thanking me for the service which I rendered. Again I may say in regard to this humble service of mine that it had the merit that it could not have aroused the anger of hon. Members opposite, because I was not breaking any trade union directives by my humble public function. It seems to me, with respect that perhaps my views on these matters are slightly coloured by my experience. If this Committee does recognise that those who are charged with duties which affect the health of every citizen of the country, really owe the community a special responsibility over and above that which is owed by the ordinary 1033 employees of an ordinary business, then it appears there are some of these workers who really fail to take account of the relative situation.
3.0 a.m.
The fact that it actually happened is proof that what we are discussing at the moment is a matter which, if it has not an academic, must have a practical, application. We on this side of the Committee think that those charged with special functions of this kind owe to the community the duty of not withdrawing their labour. We do not seek to make illegal anything which will be rendered legal if this provision is removed. What is sought is to prevent the commission of that which is already illegal. We say that if people charged with special functions for the benefit of the whole community wish to withdraw their labour, they should give adequate notice of their intention so that the health of the community shall be safeguarded.
I can only regret that the Committee should have to decide this most important question so late in the night—or morning —[Interruption]—but that is the fault of the Government with their deliberate campaign of holding this House up to ridicule and contempt. But, now that we have to decide, I suggest we decide it on the basis of a recent speech by the Lord President of the Council outside this House, which was to the effect that decisions should be in the interests of the public
§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)Any insistence on the repeal of this Subsection is inconsistency to the point of humbug, and I say that with very good reason. This Subsection provides a very mild and qualified limitation upon rights to strike; but the Government have taken power during the last month to prohibit for the next five years any strike. That is a very tall order. Some hon. Members opposite may remember that I kept them up a great deal later than they liked to stay up, a week or so ago, discussing Regulation 58A.
§ The ChairmanI do not wish to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but it does not seem to me that the question of the regulation which we discussed some time ago has relevance to this Amendment.
§ Sir J. MellorMy point is this. The Government, in repealing this Subsection. 1034 are objecting to a very mild limitation of the right to strike, and I am pointing out that they are inconsistent to the point of humbug because they have entrusted to the Minister of Labour for the next five years the power to prohibit any strike. I submit that that is a relevant argument in support of this Amendment. During the war, under Regulation 58A or 58AA, the Minister of Labour was empowered to prohibit any strike. By an Order in Council made under the Supplies and Services Act, that power was extended for the next five years; and some of us objected very strongly. I moved to annul that Order in Council which extended these powers for another five years. My Motion was resisted, and the Government voted us down, and the Minister of Labour has got his powers to prohibit any strike for the next five years. Surely, in face of that, it is hypocrisy to come here and object to the provisions of this Subsection.
§ Mr. TiffanyOn a point of Order. Earlier we were told it was "humbug" now we are informed it is "hypocrisy."
§ Sir J. MellorI am sorry, I do not understand the hon. Member's point. I am willing that he should have another try. There has been no attempt by hon. Members opposite to relate their policy to reality. The whole purpose of this Bill is to give some political satisfaction to some sections of their supporters. They have no regard for reality at all or they would not have the impudence to object to this Subsection immediately after they have given the Minister of Labour these drastic powers.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI hope hon. Members opposite will not think I was discourteous in not rising earlier. I was waiting to see if any hon. Members addressing themselves to this Amendment would adduce any serious argument which really would further it. I regret to say I have waited in vain. I gathered from the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) that this is because we are sitting so late, or rather so early. I gathered from his observations that the mental capacity of hon. Members opposite is becoming a little exhausted at this early hour of the morning.
§ Mr. HoggSince the hon. and learned Gentleman appeals to me, I am bound to tell him that he misunderstands 1035 my argument. The point I was endeavouring to make was that it was quite obvious from the atmosphere in the Chamber that the dignity of the Committee is not being enhanced by the decision of the Government to continue the Debate on a serious subject until this hour, and that right hon. and hon. Members opposite were mainly to blame for that decision.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI acquit hon. Members opposite of any lack of capacity because of the late hour. The reason why no cogent argument has been adduced on the opposite side of the Committee is because there really is no cogent argument which can be adduced in favour of this Amendment. There is absolutely no reason, and no one has suggested one, for singling out the employees of local authorities and public authorities in the manner done by this Subsection of the 1927 Act, a Subsection which introduced an entirely new principle in our law in regard to these matters.
The way in which this matter had been dealt with previously before the Tory Party, flushed with the triumphs of their "Red Letter" Election in 1924 altered the law, was this: At that time, the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) referred, the 1875 Act, on which the law relating to this matter will now again be based, dealt with the matter in this way. It provided that that the employee of any undertaking, whether a public authority or a private undertaking, which was engaged in the supply of water and gas, who maliciously broke his contract, with the result that the supplies were seriously affected, should be guilty of an offence. Later, another Statute added electricity, and again, any undertaker, public or private, was brought within the ambit of that legislation. I can understand that it might be thought by some—I am not saying whether I agree with that view or not—that there are now, in addition to the services of gas, water and electricity, others sufficiently vital and essential to the life of the community for similar provisions to be made in regard to them. That is an argument which one can understand, and if legislation were introduced, making it an offence for employees in undertakings engaged in essential services other than gas, water and electricity to strike without giving notice beforehand, it is a matter 1036 which would have to receive careful consideration.
What is suggested by this Amendment is not that all employees engaged in undertakings of that kind should be guilty of an offence if they break their contracts, but only that such employees in such undertakings as happen to be employed by a local or public authority. That is a view which, in the opinion of the Government, is entirely unsustained. There is, as far as I can see, no reason why a garbage collector in the hon. Member's late constituency, employed by the local authority—
§ Mr. HoggThe Attorney-General does me too much honour. The borough of St. Marylebone was never my constituency.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThat is the loss of the borough of St. Marylebone, no doubt. There is no reason why a garbage collector of one borough, who happens to be employed by the local authority, should commit an offence if he breaks his contract, while a garbage collector of the neighbouring town, who happens to be employed by a private contractor, would not commit an offence if he broke his contract.
§ Mr. HoggAre there any? The learned Attorney-General is raising an important point. I was talking about the garbage collectors employed by a local authority. The learned Attorney-General is now suggesting that private enterprise often indulged in this form of public service. [HON. MEMBERS: Yes."] I wonder whether the Attorney-General could tell the Committee in how many areas garbage collection is undertaken by private enterprise.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am at a disadvantage as compared with the hon. Member for Oxford. I do not profess to be an expert in these matters of garbage collection; but I apprehend, and I am so advised, that there are, in many towns, private enterprises engaged in the collection of garbage. One might well expect that they would be. Let me take another example. There is no reason that one can possibly justify upon any basis of logical principle why when the bus drivers of a local municipal undertaking break their contract and strike without notice, they should be subject to criminal prosecution, while the 1037 train drivers of a railway company should not be so liable. If there is a case for bringing in other essential services in addition to gas, water, and electricity tile matter should be examined in relation to the services and not in relation to the particular undertakers who may be carrying them on. We do not regard this Amendment as satisfactory in principle, or justifiable, and we cannot accept it.
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidI only want to add a little because I think the argument with which the learned Attorney-General has favoured us is the most astonishing he has yet advanced. I am sure he would not have advanced it had it not been for the late hour. He says that because the present law does not go far enough, and does not cover the whole ground logically, therefore it ought to be swept away. I should have thought that if he approved of the principle which he has just enunciated, if he thinks there are any substantial loopholes, he would have plugged them up. In point of fact any validity there may be in the learned Attorney-General's argument today will rapidly disappear under the ministrations of his own Government. He talks about the bus driver and the train driver. How long will it be before they come under the public authority?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not long."] —Once they are under a public authority they are covered. It will only be a year or two, if the learned Attorney-General has his way, before these people come under a public authority, only a year or two during which this
§ so-called anomaly can arise at all. If that is all that is troubling him, and if he is doing his best to plug up the loopholes as quickly as he can introduce legislation, then his argument is completely valueless.
§ That is the one line which I thought he favoured, that this ought to be a comprehensive scheme of legislation making it illegal to go on strike if one serves the community in such a way that if one suddenly goes on strike one does the community grave injury. If that is his view, then it would be very simple to plug up the loopholes. If he has his way, most of them will be plugged up anyway. If he takes the reverse line and says none of these people ought to be subject to criminal prosecution, however suddenly they go on strike, then he ought to repeal Sections 4 and 5 of the 1875 Act. He is putting the law into a state of complete chaos in which there is no principle whatever. There is no sense at all, under modern conditions, in the law as he will leave it. He ought to do one or other of two things. He ought either to repeal a great deal more than he is repealing or he ought to introduce some amending legislation to tighten up the present. law. To do what he is doing, is the most hopelessly illogical and unplanned project that I have ever seen, even from this Government.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 99; Noes, 256.
1041| Division No. 122. | AYES. | 3.20 a.m |
| Aitken, Hon. Max. | Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Maclay, Hon. J. S. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoal | Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Glossop, C W H. | Macpherson Maj, N. (Dumfries) |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Grimston, R V. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W |
| Bossom, A C | Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Marples, A. E. |
| Bower, N | Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V | Maude J. C. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Hogg, Hon Q | Medlicott, Brig. F |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Hollis, M. C. | Mellor, Sir J. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W | Hope, Lord J. | Morrison, Maj. J C (Salisbury) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T | Howard, Hon. A. | Morrison, Rt. Hn W S (Cirencester) |
| Carson, E. | Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.) | Nicholson, G |
| Channon, H. | Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Noble Comdr A. H. P |
| Clarke, Col. R. S | Jarvis, Sir J | Nutting, Anthony |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Osborne, C |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Lambert, Hon. G | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. |
| Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Langford-Holt, J. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E | Law, Rt Hon. R. K. | Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Legge-Bourke Maj E. A H | Prior-Palmer, Brig O |
| Darling, Sir W Y | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| De la Bère, R | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Digby, Major S. W | Linstead, H N. | Reid, Rt Hon. J S C. (Hillhead) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew. E.) | Ropner, Col. L |
| Drayson, G. B | Low, Brig. A R W | Ross, Sir R |
| Drewe, C. | Lucas, Major Sir J | Smithers, Sir W |
| Eecles, D M. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H, | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Eden, Rt. Hon A. | Mackeson, Lt.-Col H. R | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | McKie, J H (Galloway) | Strauss, H G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. | Turton, R. H. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Studholme, H. G. | Vane, W. M. T. | Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. |
| Sutcliffe, H. | Wakefield, Sir W. W. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) | Walker-Smith, D. | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, s,) | Ward, Hon. G. R. | |
| Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) | Wheatley, Col. M. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. | Williams, C. (Torquay) | Commander Agnew and Major Conant |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) |
| Adams W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Foster, W. (Wigan) | Moyle, A. |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Nally, W. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Neal, H. (Claycross) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Gibbins, J. | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) |
| Attewell, H. C | Gibson, C. W | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) |
| Austin, H. L. | Gilzean, A. | Noel-Buxton, Lady |
| Awbery, S. S. | Gordon-Walker, P. C. | O'Brien, T. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Oldfield, W. H. |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Baird, Capt. J. | Grenfell, D. R. i | Orbach, M. |
| Barton, C. | Grierson, E. | Paling Will T. (Dewsbury) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Berry, H. | Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Binns, J. | Gunter, Capt. R. J. | Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) |
| Blenkinsop, Capt. A. | Hale, Leslie | Paton, J. (Norwich) |
| Boardman, H. | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Pearson, A. |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Peart, Capt. T. F. |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. | Hardman, D. R | Perrins, W. |
| Bowen, R. | Hardy, E. A. | Platts-Mills, J. F. F. |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Harrison, J. | Popplewell, E. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Porter, E. (Warrington) |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Haworth, J | Pritt, D. N. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Pursey, Cmdr. H |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Hobson, C. R. | Ranger, J. |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Holman, P. | Rankin, J. |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Rees-Williams, D. R. |
| Burden, T. W. | Horabin, T. L. | Reeves, J. |
| Burke, W. A. | House, G. | Reid, T. (Swindon) |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Hoy, J. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Hudson, J. H, (Ealing, W.) | Robens, A. |
| Callaghan, James | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Hughes, Lt. H. O. (W'iverh'pton, W.) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Chamberlain, R, A. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Champion, A. J. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Sargood, R. |
| Chater, D. | Irving, W. J. | Scollan, T. |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G. R | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Segal, Dr. S. |
| Clitherow, Dr. R. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Shackleton, Wing-Corn. E. A. A. |
| Cobb, F. A. | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Cocks, F. S. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Coldrick, W. | Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Collick, P. | Keenan, W. | Shurmer, P |
| Collindridge, F. | Kenyon, C. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Collins, V. J. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Colman, Miss G. M. | Kinley, J. | Simmons C. J. |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Lang, G. | Skeffington, A. M |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Lavers, S. | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Leslie, J R. | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Crawley, Fit-Lieut. A. | Levy, B. W. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Daggar, G. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Smith, H. N (Nottingham. S.) |
| Daines, P. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Smith, T (Normanton) |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Longden F. | Snow, Capt. J. W. |
| Davits, Ernest (Enfield) | Lyne, A. W | Solley, L. J. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | McAllister, G. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | McGhee, H. G | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Deer, G. | Mack, J. D. | Sparks, J. A. |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Steele, T. |
| Delargy, Captain H. J. | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Diamond, J. | McLeavy F. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Dodds, N. N | Macpherson, T. (Romford). | Stubbs, A. E. |
| Douglas, F. C. R. | Mallalieu, J P. W. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping). | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Dumpleton, C. W. | Marshall, F. (Brightside). | Taylor, H. B (Mansfield) |
| Durbin, E. F. M. | Mathers, G. | Taylor, R. J (Morpeth) |
| Dye, S. | Mayhew, C. P. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Middleton, Mrs. L. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Mikardo, Ian | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Monslow, W. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Morgan, Dr. H. B, | Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| Farthing, W. J. | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Tiffany, S. |
| Timmons, J. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. | Wilson, J. H. |
| Tolley, L | Wiloock, Group-Capt. C A. B | Wise, Major F. J. |
| Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. | Wilkes, Maj. L. | Woodburn, A. |
| Usborne, Henry | Wilkins, W. A. | Woods, G. S. |
| Vernon, Maj. W. F. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) | Yates, V. F. |
| Walkden, E. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Walker, G. H. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) | Zilliaous, K |
| Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) | |
| Warbey, W. N. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Wells, P. L. (Faversham) | Williamson, T. | Captain Bing and |
| Wells, W. T. (Walsall) | Willis, E | Mr. Hannan, |
| White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. J. S. C. ReidThere are so many points involved in the 1927 Act, which it is sought to repeal by this Clause, that a good many of them have not yet been discussed at all, either on Second Reading or during the two days of the Committee stage, and this is the only opportunity which one has to raise them. There are others which, owing to the curtailment of the Debate at various stages, have not been fully discussed. Some questions were put to the learned Attorney-General and, on one occasion, the Closure did not permit his giving an answer, but I trust that he will do so in a few minutes. I do not want to argue the matter at any length [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Members wish me to do so, I am perfectly willing to do so. But I think that it would be for the convenience of everyone if we put our points as shortly as may be, in the hope that at last we may get an answer from the Attorney-General to some of those points which are of substance.
I wish to demonstrate to the Committee that the proceedings on this Bill have been so short that it has not been possible even to mention quite a number of points. I think that is a fair point to make, considering the curtailment of time for Debate which has occurred. Section 1 of the 1927 Act has been fairly discussed. We spent a fairly long time on that, although certain small points were left undeveloped. On the whole, we had a reasonable time to discuss Section 1. Section 2 has not been mentioned at all. It is true that it is consequential on Section 1, but it is very important. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us what the state of the law will be on the topics covered by Section 2 once it has been repealed. It deals with the position of a person who refuses to take part in an illegal strike. The Attorney-General has admitted that a number of strikes in future will be illegal. That is common ground.
1042 The only thing that is not common ground is the dividing line between legal and illegal strikes. I would ask the Attorney-General if he would say what the position of a person will be if he refuses to comply, and if his union has attempted to penalise him as a result of that refusal. The union cannot be sued for damages. That is quite clear under the 1906 Act, even though he has taken part in an illegal strike.
I am not at all clear as to the meaning of the next Section. I do not think that any of the text writers have ever discovered what is the meaning of Section 4 (2) of the 1906 Act, and I am not quite sure how it works in with this. I should like the Attorney-General to tell us what is the remedy of a loyal trade unionist if he is expelled from a union which has been captured by extremists, who indulge in an illegal strike and in which this man refuses to join. I think we are entitled to know what such a man's position is. It is of great importance to trade unionists. If he is expelled how does he get back again, and if he is deprived of any right or benefit how can he enforce his right to have that benefit, particularly if the trade union happens to have rules which permit of these matters being referred to some form of arbitration? Is there any way in which the courts can see that the rights of these men are vindicated? I hope that the Attorney-General will answer the questions which have been put to him.
What is the position of the political party in future if a union adopts the method of transferring part of its funds from the general fund to the political fund? It may be possible to do something in the case of a registered trade union, but in the case of unregistered trade unions what is a man to do? How does he know how much money has been transferred, because the repeal of Section 4 (6) abolishes the obligation to transmit annual returns? I cannot really understand why it is being abolished. I cannot understand why the Government wish 1043 unregistered trade unions to be able to conceal things which they are at present bound to publish. So far as one can gather, no one wants this particular subsection abolished, and if that is so, why repeal it? It seems to me that to go in for an abolition of this cannot be justified. I, therefore, ask the Attorney-General to tell us about the justification for the repeal of Section 4 (6), and how a member of an unregistered trade union is going to vindicate his rights in this matter once publication has ceased to operate.
I come to the next question, which arises on Section 7. I will say nothing more about Sections 1 and 6 at present. Has the Attorney-General any right in the public interest to interfere in these matters? Section 7 allows the Attorney-General to prevent the misapplication of the funds of a trade union in financing any illegal strike. Let us suppose an illegal strike does occur, and which everyone agrees is illegal and entirely subversive. If no member of the union steps in and takes the trouble to bring proceed-
§ ings for an injunction, can the Attorney-General step in and prevent the misapplication of funds for this admittedly illegal purpose? Will he tell us what his powers are in that respect? It is of importance that we should have in black and white what the position of the Government and Attorney-General is in the event of an illegal strike taking place. These are only two of the questions which have not been dealt with up to date. I do not wish to complicate the proceedings by asking more questions, but I do ask for answers to the questions I have already put.
Mr. De la B è re (Evesham)I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is a good many hours since this Motion was moved.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes. 100; Noes, 251.
1045| Division No. 123. | AYES. | [3.40 a.m |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hope, Lord J. | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry). |
| Aitken, Hon. Max. | Howard, Hon. A. | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.) | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Astor, Hon. M. | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Baldwin, A. E | Jarvis, Sir J. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Roberts, Sq.-Ldr. Emrys O. (M'rion'th) |
| Bowen, R. | Lambert, Hon. G. | Ropner, Col. L. |
| Bower, N. | Langford-Holt, J. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J, A. | Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A. H. | Spearman, A. C. M. |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col, W | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Linstead, H. N. | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Carson, E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Studholme, H. G. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N |
| Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Turton, R H. |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Wakefield, Sir W. W |
| Digby, Major S. W. | Marples, A. E. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maude, J. C. | Ward, Hon. G R. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Medlicott, Brig. F. | Wheatley, Col. M. J. |
| Drewe, C | Mellor, Sir J. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U. |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C. | Nicholson, G | Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick) |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | |
| Grimston, R. V. | Nutting, Anthony | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Osborne, C. | Mr. De la Bère and |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V | Peto, Brig. C. H. M. | Mr. Hogg |
| Hollis, M. C. | Pitman, I. J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Bacon, Miss A |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Attewell, H. C. | Baird, Capt. J. |
| Adamson, Mrs. J. L. | Austin, H. L. | Barton, C |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Awbery, S. S. | Bechervaise, A. E. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Berry, H |
| Bing, Capt. G. H C. | Hardy, E. A. | Ranger, J. |
| Binns, J. | Harrison, J. | Rankin, J. |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Rees-Williams, D. R. |
| Blenkinsop, Capt. A | Haworth, J | Reeves, J. |
| Boardman, H. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Reid, T. (Swindon) |
| Bottomlay, A. G. | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Ridealgh, Mrs M. |
| Bowden, Fig -Offr H. W | Hobson, C. R. | Robens, A. |
| Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton) | Holman, P. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) |
| Biaddock, T. (Mitcham) | Horabin, T. L. | Sargood, R. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | House, G. | Scollan, T. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Hoy, J. | Segal, Dr. S. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Shackleton, Wing-Corn. E. A. A. |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Burden, T. W. | Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Burke, W. A. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Shurmer, P. |
| Callaghan, James | Irving, W. J. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Chamberlain. R. A. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Champion, A. J. | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Chater, D. | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G. R | Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Clitherow, Dr. R. | Keenan, W. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Cobb, F. A. | Kenyon, C. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cocks, F. S | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E | Snow, Capt. J. W. |
| Coldrick, W. | Kinley, J. | Solley, L. J. |
| Collick, P. | Lang, G. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Collindridge, F. | Lavers, S. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Collins, V. J. | Leslie, J. R | Sparks, J. A |
| Colman, Miss G. M. | Levy, B. W. | Steele, T. |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Corbet, Mrs, F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Corlett, Dr. J. | Longden, F. | Stubbs, A. E. |
| Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A. | Lyne, A. W. | Smnmerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Daggar, G. | McAllister, G. | Swingler, Capt. S. |
| Daines, P. | McGhee, H. G. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Mack, J. D. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Davies, S O. (Merthyr) | McLeavy, F. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Deer, G. | Macpherson, T. (Romford). | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E) |
| Delargy, Captain H. J | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.). | Thorneyeroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| Diamond J. | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping). | Tiffany, S. |
| Dodds, N. N | Marshall, F. (Brightside). | Timmons, J. |
| Douglas, F. C. R. | Mathers, G. | Tolley, L. |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Mayhew, C. P. | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. |
| Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Middleton, Mrs. L. | Usborne, Henry |
| Dumpleton, C. W. | Mikardo, Ian | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Durbin, E. F. M. | Mitchison, Maj. G. R | Walkden, E. |
| Dye, S. | Monslow, W | Walker, G. H. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Warbey, W. N |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Moyle, A. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Nally, W. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Neal, H. (Claycross) | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Farthing, W. J. | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. |
| Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B. |
| Foster, W. (Wigan) | Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Wilkes, Maj. L. |
| Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Noel-Buxton, Lady | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Freeman, Peter (Newport) | O'Brien, T. | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Oldfield, W. H. | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Gibbins, J. | Oliver, G. H. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Gibson, C. W. | Orbach, M. | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Gilzean, A. | Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Gordon-Walker, P. C. | Palmer, A M. F. | Williamson, T. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Pargiter, G. A. | Willis, E. |
| Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood) | Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Wilson, J. H. |
| Grierson, E. | Paton, J. (Norwich) | Wise, Major F. J. |
| Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Pearson, A. | Woodburn, A |
| Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) | Peart, Capt. T. F | Woods, G. S. |
| Gunter, Capt. R. J | Perrins, W. | Yates, V. F |
| Haire, Flt.-Lt. J. (Wycombe) | Platts-Mills, J. F. F. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Hale, Leslie | Popplewell, E. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Porter, E. (Warrington) | |
| Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Pritt, D. N. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Proctor, W. T. | Mr. Robert Taylor and |
| Hardman, D R | Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Mr. Simmons |
| Original Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." |
§ Mr. H. StraussIf I may follow the example of my right hon. and learned Friend, I should also like to put some questions to the Attorney-General. In fact, they are the same questions which were put to him at an earlier stage, and the Attorney-General, with his usual courtesy, was about to reply when the Government Chief Whip, apparently terrified as to what reply he would make, promptly proposed the Closure. We hope that the Chief Whip will now be less panicky, and I will venture to return to the subject, because it is important that we should know certain things before the Third Reading. Let me put this simple point. It is clear, is it not, that with the exception of Section 5, the effect of the repeal of the 1927 Act is more or less clear? But in the case of the repeal of Section 5 there will be a state of complete uncertainty until the Government tell us what Civil Service regulations they propose to make when they are no longer fettered by Section 5. Civil Service unions and civil servants will get no further freedom beyond what they enjoy already by the mere repeal of Section 5. They will only get it when the Civil Service regulations have been revised, and they can only be revised by the Government.
The questions I wish to put to the Attorney-General are these: Will the membership of the Civil Service unions be confined to servants of the Crown? Will there be any provisions in the Civil Service regulations—I am not saying that there should be, I am simply asking for the intentions of the Government. I imagine hon. Members opposite will be as much interested in the answers as I am. Otherwise, it is little good pretending that they are champions of the Civil Service, asking for some great reform. [An HON. MEMBER: "We know the answers."] I do not think hon. Members know the answers.
§ Mr. Walkden (Doncaster)We have read them in the book.
§ Mr. StraussThe question is whether membership of these unions will be confined to servants of the Crown. Will there be provisions in the regulations, making the Civil Service unions independent of organisations which are not confined to servants of the Crown? Will they be allowed to have political objects? If they are allowed to have political objects, will they be allowed to have all political 1048 objects or will there be any restriction? Lastly, will they be allowed to be associated with political parties and organisations? If they are allowed to be associated with political parties and organisations, does that mean all political parties and organisations including the Communist Party, about which the Lord President of the Council and other Ministers have been addressing trade unionists in secret? The nature and vigour of their views on the Communist Party have appeared in their official paper. Will they allow affiliation to the Communist Party of which they have said all these things?
Those are a few simple questions about the Civil Service regulations which the Government propose to make with the power given them when they obtain the repeal of Section 5. I take it the learned Attorney-General will not say the Government have not made up their minds, and that they are allowing Civil Servants to have great hopes of the repeal of this Section when it has nothing whatever for their benefit. If they have made up their minds what they are going to do, I think we are entitled to the answers to these few simple questions.
§ Mr. MaclayIn considering whether the Clause should stand part of the Bill, I found myself wondering why one should set about trying to make a law at all. One has to get back to fundamentals to understand some of the things which are happening. I know very well, of course, that there are many positive reasons, but there are no positive reasons for this Bill, unless it is a positive reason to wipe out a bad Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that case, someone has to prove that the Measure being wiped out is a bad one. I then tried to decide for myself what made it bad. I came to the conclusion that a bad Act was one that caused trouble or confusion. I cannot consider that the Act of 1927 falls under either of those headings. I submit that the Government have not made the slightest case that this 1927 Act has caused either trouble or confusion. If they have made any such case—I am quite certain that they have not—can any hon. Member opposite say that during the period since 1927 the industries of this country, the workers, the trade unionists, or anybody else in the country, have suffered in the slightest through the existence of this Act? If they can say that, 1049 I would comment that no one has done it during this Debate. Any person who reads through the earlier record of the Second Reading will find that the same remark is true with regard to that.
On the other side, there is certain positive evidence which has been brought out freely by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and which has been refuted in no way by anyone on the opposite side. During the period under discussion the unions have increased in membership, in status, and effectiveness. In fact, today the unions of this country stand higher than ever before in history. What is more, relations between employers and employees, between employers and unions, have grown better and better steadily since 1927. I think everyone will agree that there is a great deal of evidence in the whole of this discussion to show that this improvement has come almost certainly as a result of the Act of 1927. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh."] If it cannot be the cause of it, it has certainly done nothing to stop it. That disposes of the question of the Act making trouble.
4.0 a.m.
On the question whether it was confusing and therefore ought to be got rid of, perhaps a case could be made out; the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General made some vague remarks in that respect. On one particular question, that of watching and besetting, he made the positive statement that before 1927 the position was dead clear, but I gathered, by listening very closely after that, that experts had said that the 1906 Act had completely wrecked that position, and I did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman answer that contention. I do not want to go on with all the other detailed points that arise; it is quite clear that the 1927 Act clarified a great many points, so that the Government fall down altogether on their possible reasons for introducing a Bill of this sort. The thing is ridiculous. What is it all about? I will not repeat all that has been said about it, but I will repeat one thing: it is all this miserable business of the right hon. Gentleman's "stigma." There is no justification for it. If hon. Members opposite will search their consciences, they will realise that perfectly well. Some hon. Members opposite have said that the whole question of trade unions should be recodified. Can they sap that they are really happy to see this 1050 clarification, this useful assistance to the guardians of peace in this country, removed by this short—almost insultingly short—Bill we have before us? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I doubt it. Any dispassionate observer, I am certain, would feel that the Government have been guilty of positive frivolity in producing a Bill like this at this time.
§ Mr. HoggI hope, when the question comes to be discussed as to what objects the vastly increased funds of the Labour Party will be given, funds which have arisen by reason of the new compulsory political levy, that consideration will be given to a handsome donation to the Dumb Friends' League. [Interruption.] I can conceive of no charitable donation which would more amply express the objects and intentions of the Labour Party on this Bill. But our dumb friends are with us still, as was indicated by the result of the Division, and there are still one or two things which require to be said. The first is that really the Government have no complaint whatever with the way in which the Opposition has been conducted on this Clause. No clearer indication of that could have been given than the commendably short speeches that have been made on the Motion now before the Committee. It would have been very easy, had we been dealing, as has sometimes been said, in obstruction, to deliver long speeches on this Motion, which indeed raises the whole question of all the principles in the 1927 Act. Hon. Members on this side have not in fact done so, and I entirely agree with that decision. It is better to reserve the larger questions to the Third reading, when no doubt we shall have ample opportunity to discuss them.
My hon. Friend dealt with a number of points which have not been touched upon so far in any of our Debates. I want, in the few moments that remain to me, to deal with those points which appear to me to be clearly admitted by the Government spokesmen. For that purpose, I should like to follow the general course which our discussions have taken. In the first place, it always was contended by the supporters of the 1927 Act, that the effect of it would not be in any way to impair the activities of the trade unions. It is now clearly admitted from the Government front bench, despite all the talk, that that intention has proved amply 1051 justified, and that the trade unions have not, in fact, been crippled by that Act. In the second place, with regard to the general strike, the Attorney-General has now clearly admitted that certain strikes will continue to be illegal when the repeal of the 1927 Act is effected. That was the cornerstone of his contention on Second Reading. At the same time, he contends that illegality in the matter of strikes is thoroughly undesirable, because he maintains that to make or retain the illegality of strikes is not the right way to prevent them.
As regards intimidation, it is now admitted by the Government that any act, or some acts, which would be called intimidation by the ordinary grammatical use of the language, would now be permitted if they went outside the threat of physical violence. Notwithstanding that, there will be a vast increase in the number of acts which we would all call intimidation, and it is now proposed to permit them to take place in a man's home, and still worse, to take place when the man is away from his home. Next, on the political levy. it is now admitted, and the Attorney-General sought to rely upon it during Second Reading—[Laughter.]—When the hon. Member has finished his private joke, perhaps I may be permitted to continue.
§ Mr. CallaghanWe were expressing our regret and sorrow for the blacklegs which hon. Members opposite are so much concerned about.
§ Mr. HoggI understood someone to say that I was a blackleg myself. May I ask, Major Milner, whether that is in Order?
§ The ChairmanIf any hon. Member used that expression, I should certainly ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. McKie (Galloway)On a point of Order. I would draw your attention to that fact that the word "blackleg" used by the hon. Member was clearly audible on these benches.
§ Mr. PopplewellI used the word "blackleg," but I did not refer to the 1052 hon. Gentleman. I think that I was perfectly audible. I said that it was the concern of hon. Members opposite to protect blacklegs. I certainly did not refer to the hon. Gentleman as a blackleg.
§ Mr. HoggOf course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. lie phrase which was clearly heard by hon. Members must have come from another hon. Member who has not the courage to admit what he said or the decency to withdraw it—may I say, a rather typical Member of the Labour Party.
§ The ChairmanWill the hon. Gentleman proceed with his argument?
§ Mr. HoggI was about to do so, Major Milner, when I was met with loud and ribald cries from the opposite benches. I was dealing with the third main object of this Bill, and I was about to point out that it is now admitted—and the Attorney-General built it into his argument—that the Labour Party would indeed be drawing considerable funds, as a result of the change in the law, from people who, to say the least of it, are politically indifferent. It is now admitted that one of the great parties of the State is going to stoop to attracting funds to itself, which are contributed by people who do not care, one way or the other, to what party they contribute. Moreover, it is admitted that one of the objects of this fund is to help pay the salaries of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [AN HON. MEMBER: Who admitted that? "] The Attorney-General clearly referred to the definition of the 1913 Act which made that plain. So far as the local authorities are concerned, it is now going to be legal for a local authority to impose a term in the contract of a workman that he should not be a member of a particular trade union. We have these points clearly admitted. I refer any comments about matters which may remain in controversy to a time and place where Parliamentary discussion can be carried on in a proper and more dignified manner than the Government have seen fit to permit.
§ Major John Freeman (Watford)On a point of Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has just made an unwarranted reflection on your authority. It is surely not the responsibility of the Government to decide whether Parliamentary discussion is carried on in a fit and proper manner.
§ The ChairmanI understood that the hon. Member was addressing himself to the question of the time, for which the Government and not the Chair is responsible.
§ Mr. HoggIf I may say with due respect, Major Milner, you have entirely and correctly understood what I was en-deavouring to say. I only want to add this. This Debate this morning has been in some respects an unseemly display of arrogance and over exercise of authority by the Government. The time will come when they will perhaps be in Opposition. I only trust that whatever Government is in power at that time will behave with greater courtesy and decency than they have shown tonight.
§ 4.15 a.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has certainly been enjoying himself this morning. The Committee will agree that he has earned his few hours' rest before he comes back this afternoon and repeats many of the arguments he has used in the course of our discussion, and which he also made in the Second Reading Debate some weeks ago. I confess that while listening to him and some of the other hon. Members opposite who have spoken, I thought we were, if it were possible, getting even more remote from the realities of the situation than we had previously been. Hon. Members opposite put a large number of questions to me based on hypothetical instances, which I confess are exceedingly unlikely to arise. Before attempting to answer some of them I enter this caveat: I think that never in the whole history of the country has the probability of an illegal general strike been as, remote as it is today. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) put a number of questions to me in the course of his observations, and as far as I was able to take a note of them I shall answer them. I do not intend, however, to develop any lengthy legal argument in regard to them. That does not seem to me to be for the convenience of the Committee at this stage.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what would be the position of a man who refused to take part in an illegal strike and was penalised in consequence of his refusal. I am not going to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman into arguments of hypothetical cases of that kind, because nobody knows 1054 better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman how unwise it is to engage in arguments without having the facts and, in a case like this, without knowing the rules of the organisation to which the particular individual belonged. I will content myself with saying this, that in such cases the individual concerned would have exactly the same rights and remedies as those which no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded as eminently satisfactory in the case of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union v Reed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked what would be the position if an unregistered trade union misapplied its funds. I think there is a little confusion about this matter. It is perfectly true that an unregistered trade union will in future not be required to submit its accounts to the Registrar. I make nothing of the point that the number of unregistered trade unions is insignificant in comparison with the numbers of registered trade unions. There are, in fact, only about a dozen or so. The fact that unregistered trade unions are not required to submit their accounts to the Registrar of Friendly Societies does not enable them to misapply their funds any more than a private company is enabled to misapply its funds because it may not be under an obligation to publish its accounts in a particular way. I would have thought, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know as well as I do, that it was reasonably apparent that any person interested in an unregistered trade union which misapplies its funds would have redress in the civil courts and might also be able to invoke the remedies of the criminal law. There might also be action under the criminal law for falsification of accounts, or that person might also rely on the sections of our criminal law dealing with fraudulent trustees.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what was the attitude of the Government to an illegal general strike. I thought I had made that abundantly clear in the Second Reading Debate. I appreciate that in the course of this sham fight we are having tonight some hon. Members may have forgotten what happened in that Debate some weeks ago. I think I made it clear that the Government are already armed with the powers created by the Emergency Powers Act of 1920, operated by Mr. Baldwin's Government in 1926. I made it clear that the 1055 Government, if faced with a revolutionary strike, would use whatever powers they had to crush it. The Government will deal with any revolutionary action on the part of strikers, or on the part of Tories who seek to defy the law as some of the distinguished lawyers who supported the 1927 Bill did in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "That will wake them up."] That is my answer as to what is the policy of the Government in regard to revolutionary strikes. We shall put them down with all the means in our power, and, if it is necessary, we shall come to Parliament to obtain further and other powers according to the necessities of the situation at the time.
The hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) asked a question as to the policy of the Government about strikes by civil servants—
§ Mr. H. StraussI pointed out that the repeal or Section 5 would enable the Government to make different Civil Service regulations, aria I asked what provision these regulations would make on specific subjects.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI thought the hon. Member put that question in a rather different form, but I was, in the first instance, about to answer that question when other circumstances intervened. I would draw his attention to the fact that I dealt with it in the Second Reading Debate, but we had not the advantage of his presence then, and the question of strikes by civil servants was fully dealt with at that time. I do not propose at this stage to anticipate what Civil Service regulations may or may not he made by the Treasury. We are here dealing with the provisions of the 1927 Act and I confess I find it quite irrelevant to that matter to consider what terms and conditions this Government or some subsequent Government may, as an ordinary employer, seek to impose upon those whom they employ. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Maclay) put two questions, and one of them was covered or duplicated by a question which the hon. Member for Oxford also put, and which, no doubt, he put in duplication of the one put by the hon. Member for Montrose, because he was too busy thinking out questions he could put to hear the questions other people were 1056 already putting. I venture to think, in regard to the points the hon. Member for Montrose made, that those with any knowledge of the history of our industrial relations in the last 25 years, with their course and development, would not be likely to attribute, as he did, the undoubted improvement which has taken place in that period, to the existence of the 1927 Act. It was, in fact, an improvement which had started before that Act, and nobody who was trying to bring a serious and detached mind to this problem would imagine for a moment that the 1927 Act had done anything but hinder the development of that improved relationship.
§ Mr. MaclayThe hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that there is no conceivable evidence of that.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI would have thought that those who have any knowledge of industrial relations would have known that to be a statement which could not possibly be contradicted. If the hon. Member is saying there is no conceivable evidence of it, it is, I suppose, equally true that there is no conceivable evidence in support of his own ipse dixit. The hon. Member for Montrose asked a question about their position in regard to intimidation and he said that he understood, although he was not a lawyer, that the position had been complicated by the provision of the 1906 Act. I content myself with reminding him that I read earlier today a statement by the Conservative Home Secretary in 1926. He did not find any complication in the matter. He did not find any difficulty. The Home Office was more efficiently organised then than it was in the previous period to which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) had been referring, as the then Home Secretary said, in a few terse sentences, exactly what the law of intimidation was. If the hon Member was not in the Chamber at that time, he will find it set out in the OFFICIAL. REPORT tomorrow morning.
I now come to the observations of the hon. Member for Oxford. He followed his usual favourite device of putting up the ninepins and knocking them down. He proceeded to enunciate a number of propositions on which he satisfied himself —and I venture to think no one else in the Committee—that someone whom he did 1057 not specify had made admissions about something, and having satisfied himself that someone had made admissions about something, he proceeded to develop various Third Reading arguments, which, I confess, I found myself unable to follow, and which, accordingly, I do not propose to answer now. I have no doubt, on the other hand, that the hon. Member who has taken every opportunity, and quite properly, to raise these matters, in the course of the discussion of this Bill, will raise them again today on the Third Reading Debate, and if I am the better able to follow them then, I will do my best to answer them. They were, at all events, Third Reading points.
§ 4.30 a.m.
§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)The Attorney-General's answers to the questions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) about illegal strikes, left the Committee in a state of confusion. The Attorney-General first told us that he could imagine nothing less likely than that there would be illegal strikes. How could he say that, when not many months ago the Minister of Labour stood at that Box and denounced a strike that was taking place as illegal? I am still more puzzled by his further argument about the attitude of the Government towards illegal strikes. He reminded us of a passage in his speech on Second Reading which, as far as it went, was perfectly clear. In that passage, he told the House that the Government would consider it their duty to take all measures, and were armed to take all measures, against a revolutionary strike. It seems to have slipped his mind that in the course of that same speech he also told us that he disapproved of, and disliked, general strikes, but that he did not think that there was any point in prohibiting them by law because five million people could not be put into prison, and that that would merely provoke a conflict in which, he said, the law would inevitably lose. If the law would inevitably lose that conflict against a general strike, I confess that I cannot see why it should not equally lose a conflict against a revolutionary strike. He told us that it was not worth while to legislate against these great upsurges of the human spirit. But those upsurges are just as likely to take a revolutionary form as not.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI think I can save the hon. Member's time. He must 1058 have completely failed to follow the argument which I adduced to the House on Second Reading, which I repeat quite shortly now. I do not suggest for a moment that a revolutionary strike or an illegal strike can be stopped by merely passing laws. What I hope I made perfectly clear on Second Reading was that I was referring to exactly the same kind of action as was taken by Mr. Baldwin's Government—not action in the courts, but executive action.
§ Mr. HollisSurely the Attorney-General did refer to emergency powers? What must be in the interests of every citizen, whatever he thinks should be legal or illegal about strike action, is that the law, at any rate, should be as clear as possible. In a way I agree that this Debate is academic, if that is the right word to use, for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). In point of fact, the Government, before they saw fit to repeal this Act, armed themselves with much wider powers to suppress strikes than were ever dreamed of under the 1927 Act, or indeed ever existed in this country since the days of Huskisson and the Combination Acts. The situation is that it is in the public interest that the law should be as clear as possible. It is true that, as the Attorney-General has said, at the time of the general strike the Law Officer of the Crown, Lord Hailsham, had no doubt that the general strike was illegal. A large number of distinguished lawyers in the country were by no means so certain in their opinion, and a large number of laymen, trade unionists and others, had no suspicion that a general strike was illegal. The reason, very largely, why the general strike took place was because of that doubt in the minds of people throughout the country.
The importance of getting the law clear was not to put five million people in the wrong but because we are a law-abiding people, and the vast majority of the population of this country do not want to defy the law once they know what it is. It did, in point of fact, happen when the general strike took place that people were not clear about the law. As soon as they had even a suspicion after Lord Simon's speech that they were defying the law, that was one of the most effective causes in bringing the general strike to an end. The learned Attorney-General argued that 1059 even under the law of 1927 it was by no means clear what was legal and what was illegal in the strike. I think myself he was very effectively answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) in that Debate. Supposing he was right and there still was confusion under the law of 1927, that is surely an argument for bringing in an Amendment to clear up that confusion. The Labour Government can scarcely argue, because the Conservative Government left the situation somewhat confused, that, therefore, they had a mandate to make the situation completely confused. The truth of the matter is we are not here dealing with an Act of Parliament, or even the repeal of an Act of Parliament, in the ordinary sense of the word. We are simply dealing with the canonisation of a false historical myth. History, with all due respect, cannot be abolished simply to serve the convenience of hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe learned Attorney-General took a very different line on the subject of illegal strikes when he spoke a few minutes ago, as compared with the line which he took on the Second Reading. This morning the learned Attorney-General took a firm line. He thumped the Box and, referring to illegal strikes, said, "We will put them down." That was, no doubt, a very much more satisfactory statement from the principal Law Officer of the Crown than was his statement on Second Reading, but it is fair that the Committee should have the opportunity of comparing the two statements. This is what the Attorney-General said on Second Reading:
Of course, I do not want to suggest for a single moment, that any Government in their senses would attempt to suppress a strike by means of a criminal prosecution."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1946; Vol. 419; c. 203.]Before we get to the Third Reading of this Bill, we are surely entitled to know which of these two voices is the voice of His Majesty's Government and which is the voice of their legal adviser. Is it the voice that says that they do not intend to use criminal prosecution, or is it the voice of that somewhat firmer figure that we saw this morning thumping the Box and telling the Committee that the strike would be put down?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am loth to interrupt the hon. Member. I thought I had dealt with that point clearly in a way which would have been apparent to even the meanest intelligence when I interrupted the last speaker or the last speaker but one and called attention to what I did say. I did not say, either now or on the Second Reading, that we would put down illegal strikes by criminal prosecution. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) knows that he has isolated from its context one sentence of a passage in which I dealt with the manner in which we would cope with revolutionary strikes. He has isolated that sentence in order to give a completely misleading interpretation of what I said.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe learned Attorney-General, in that somewhat irritable interruption, has succeeded in negativing one of his two voices without giving an affirmative interpretation of the other. He was good enough to say that, in the passage from his speech with which I troubled the Committee, I had isolated one passage from its context. In those circumstances, I think it is proper that I should continue to read:
Mr. Baldwin's Government, in 1926, did not do so.—That is to say, try criminal proceedings.—They had no doubt the strike was illegal, but they did not attempt to suppress it by the processes of the criminal law.Then the learned Attorney-General goes on, in what, I must confess, would seem to be rather inordinate length, to denounce the idea of criminal prosecution. I, therefore, resent the unfounded suggestion made by the learned Attorney-General that I isolated a passage from his speech to give a false impression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I will certainly read it, if necessary. It would appear —
§ The Attorney-GeneralI am sorry to interrupt, because I did not expect that the hon. Member would deliberately attempt to misinterpret what I had said, and to mislead the Committee. He knows that what I said on the Second Reading is almost word for word what I have said in the Debate in Committee today, and that if he read the remaining lines of the passage of which he has just read the commencement, that would appear manifestly to be the fact. I would expect the hon. 1061 Member would wish to deal fairly and properly both with me and with the Committee in this matter.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the learned Attorney-General is of the opinion that the reading of the, to my mind, perfectly clear passage of his speech will illuminate his argument, he shall certainly have the pleasure of hearing his own words. The Committee will recollect that the second passage I read was on the subject of the undesirability of using criminal prosecutions to deal with the illegal strike:
Looking back on it now, it is difficult to imagine anything that would have done more to exacerbate the situation. You cannot settle these great human movements, wrong and misguided as they may be, by putting a few people into prison. That only makes martyrs of those people. That is not to say, of course, that it is not the duty of the Government to deal with any strike situation which may arise. Of course it is. And it is a duty which the present Government will loyally discharge. In 1920, in contemplation, as a matter of fact, of the possibility that a general strike situation might arise, Parliament "—[HON. MEMBERS: "Slowly."] I feel that the clarity of the learned Attorney-General's prose permits a fairly high rate of reading; if I have flattered the mentality of hon. Members opposite, I am sorry—passed the Emergency Powers Act of that year, giving the Government all necessary powers to deal with any such situation, short of this: that the Government were not to be allowed to declare that the strike was illegal. Those powers were operated in 1927 and they continue to exist. If the Government of the time, faced with any emergency of this kind, found that their existing powers were not adequate to deal with the situation, they could come back to Parliament and ask for whatever additional powers were necessary in the circumstances of the situation. "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 19.16; Vol. 419, c. 203.]I hope that the learned Attorney-General's craving for post-dated publicity has been gratified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I still say that it is abundantly clear from that passage that the Attorney-General, first, eliminates the possibility of criminal prosecution; second, states what is, of course, a platitude, that it would be the duty of the Government 'o deal with any situation; third, expresses no opinion as to whether those powers are adequate or not, and fourth, says that if they are not he will come back to Parliament and ask for more. With the greatest respect for the Attorney-General—and I do not care whether it makes him irritable—he has given nothing 1062 clear and to the point other than the statement that he does not propose to prosecute. I obtained the impression, from what he said, that sooner or later a Law Officer of the Crown would come forward and state that they would put down a strike, and that that meant they would prosecute. If what he desired to say, and inadvertently did not make clear, is that, in no circumstance, will the Government institute criminal prosecution against an illegal strike, it is just as well that that should be stated with clarity, so that there can be no doubt whatever in the minds of anyone. If that is what the Attorney-General desired to say, I will yield to him now and let him say it.
§ 4.45 a.m.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI said nothing of the kind. The hon. Member will see what I said when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not propose to engage in any further argument with the hon. Member, who is, obviously, not prepared to deal with this matter in a fair and detached way.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIf the Attorney-General declines to answer a perfectly plain and clear question, it is of course not possible for an Opposition Member to compel him so to do. I ask him, and I do not care for any amount of personal irritation on his part, the plain question, which is susceptible of a monosyllabic answer: Does his recent speech mean that it is the policy of the Government, in no circumstance, to prosecute leaders of an illegal strike? That question is susceptible of an answer "Yes" or "No." After the Attorney-General's singularly discourteous reply just now, if he declines to answer that question, I shall, with very great respect, reply to him that it appears that it is he, and not I, who is not prepared to deal with this matter seriously. This matter is by no means as academic as the Attorney-General has suggested. The illegal strike is by no means so remote as he has suggested. Let me read five lines, which may be familiar to the Attorney-General:
May I, with all humility, take the same line, and say how proud I am that my father taught me as a boy to be a trade unionist, and when I grew up to put my trade unionism above all else.Those words were spoken by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, and it would appear that, even this morning it has a certain amount of support. 1063 Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
§ Mr. IsaacsIf I had the same courtesy from the hon. Member as my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I would not want to intervene.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe right hon. Gentleman can be assured that he will obtain all the courtesy from me which he has shown. If words of that sort, indicating willingness to put trade unionism above all else, can be spoken by a right hon. Gentleman, an ex-president of the Trades Union Congress, who is also a Minister of the Crown, and holds one of the most responsible positions in this country, it is surely wildly optimistic to suggest that there are not people of less responsibility, who would put their trade unionism above all else, even to the extent of striking against the State.
§ The Attorney-GeneralIf the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-
§ Carpenter) has finished his oration, the only monosyllabic answer which occurs to me to fit the question which he has put is one which you, Major Milner, might regard as unparliamentary. I desire to make quite clear that at no time have I suggested that, in no circumstances, would those who engaged in illegal strikes be the subject of criminal prosecution. Of course not. Each case will be considered on its merits. That is what I have always said. What I said was that you cannot expect to put down a revolutionary strike by the processes of the criminal law. That is what I said on Second Reading and in the course of the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames knows perfectly well that that is what I said.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 99.
1065| Division No. 124.] | AYES. | [4.55 a.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Corlett, Dr. J. | Hardy, E. A. |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) | Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A. | Harrison, J. |
| Adamson. Mrs. J. L. | Daggar, G. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Daines, P. | Haworth, J. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Davies, Ernest (Enfield) | Hewitson, Capt. M. |
| Allewell, H. C. | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hobson, C. R. |
| Austin, H. L. | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Holman, p. |
| Awbery, S. S | Deer, G. | Holmes, H E (Hemsworth) |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Horabin, T. L |
| Bacon, Miss A. | Delargy, Captain H. J. | House, G. |
| Baird, Capt. J. | Diamond, J. | Hoy, J. |
| Barton, C | Dodds, N. N | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) |
| Bechervaise, A. E. | Douglas, F. C. R. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Berry, H | Driberg, T. E. N. | Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) |
| Bing, Capt. G. H. C. | Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) |
| Binns, J. | Dumpleton, C. W. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) |
| Blackburn, A. R. | Durbin, E. F. M | Irving, W. J. |
| Boardman, H | Dye, S. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. |
| Bottomley, A. G. | Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Jeger, G. (Winchester) |
| Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W | Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) |
| Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) | Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) | Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Jones, Asterley (Hitchm) |
| Braddock, T. (Mitcham) | Evans, E. (Lowestoft) | Keenan, W. |
| Brook, D. (Halifax) | Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Kenyon, C. |
| Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) | Farthing, W. J. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. |
| Brown, George (Belper) | Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) | Kinley, J. |
| Brown, T. J. (Ince) | Foster, W. (Wigan) | Lang, G. |
| Bruce, Major D. W. T. | Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) | Lavers, S. |
| Burden, T. W. | Freeman, Peter (Newport) | Leslie, J. R. |
| Burke, W. A. | Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | Levy, B. W. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Gibbins, J. | Lewis, A W. J. (Upton) |
| Callaghan, James | Gibson, C. W. | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Gilzean, A. | Longden, F. |
| Chamberlain, R. A | Gordon-Walker, P. C | Lyne, A. W |
| Champion, A. J | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | McAllister, G. |
| Chater, D. | Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) | McGhee, H. G |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G. R | Grenfell, D R. | Mack, J. D. |
| Clilherow, Dr. R. | Grierson, E. | McKay J. (Wallsend) |
| Cobb, F. A. | Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) |
| Cocks, F. S | Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) | McLeavy, F. |
| Coldrick, W. | Gunter, Capt. R. J. | Macpherson, T. (Romford). |
| Collick, P. | Hale, Leslie | Mailalieu, J. P. W. |
| Collins, V. J. | Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.). |
| Colman, Miss G. M. | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Marshall, F. (Brightside). |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | Hardman, D. R. | Mathers, G |
| Mayhew, C. P. | Reid, T. (Swindon) | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Middleton, Mrs. L. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Mikardo, Ian | Robens, A. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) | Thorneycroft, H. (Manchester, C.) |
| Monslow, W. | Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) | Tiffany, S. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sargood, R. | Timmons, J. |
| Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) | Scollan, T. | Tolley, L. |
| Moyle, A. | Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A | Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G |
| Nally, W. | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. | Usborne, Henry |
| Neal, H. (Claycross) | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) | Vernon, Maj. W. F. |
| Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) | Walkden, E. |
| Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) | Shurmer, P. | Walker, G. H. |
| Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) | Silverman, J. (Erdington) | Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) |
| Noel Buxton, Lady | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) | Warbey, W. N |
| O'Brien, T. | Simmons, C J. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) |
| Oldfield, W. H. | Skeffington, A. M | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) |
| Oliver, G. H. | Skinnard, F W | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) |
| Orbach, M. | Smith, Capt C. (Colchester) | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. w. |
| Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Palmer, A. M. F. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) | Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) |
| Pargiter, G. A | Smith, T. (Normanton) | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) |
| Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T. | Snow, Capt. J. W. | Williams, D. J. (Neath) |
| Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) | Solley, L. J | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) |
| Paton, J. (Norwich) | Sorensen, R. W. | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Pearson, A. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F | Williamson, T. |
| Peart, Capt. T. F. | Sparks, J. A | Willis, E. |
| Perrins, W. | Steele, T. | Wills, Mrs. E. A |
| Platts-Mills, J. F F. | Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.) | Wilson, J. H. |
| Popplewell, E. | Stross, Dr. B. | Wise, Major F. J |
| Porter, E. (Warrington). | Stubbs, A. E. | Woodburn, A |
| Pritt, D. N. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith | Woods, G. S |
| Proctor, W. T. | Swingler, Capt. S. | Yates, V. F. |
| Pursey, Cmdr. H. | Symonds, Maj. A. L. | Younger, Hon. Kenneth |
| Ranger, J. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) | Zilllacus, K. |
| Rankin, J. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | |
| Rees-Williarm, D. R. | Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Reeves, J. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) | Mr. Collindrldge and |
| Captain Blenkinsop. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. | Hope, Lord J. | Peto, Brig. C. H. M |
| Aitken, Hon. Max. | Howard, Hon. A. | Pitman, I. J. |
| Amory, D. Heathcoat | Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.) | Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) |
| Astor. Hon. M. | Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Jarvis, Sir J | Ramsay, Maj. S. |
| Bossom, A C | Jeffreys, General Sir G | Rayner, Brig. R. |
| Bower, N | Lambert, Hon. G. | Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C (Hillhead) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. | Langford-Holt, J. | Ropner, Col. L |
| Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. | Law, Rt Hon. R. K. | Ross, Sir R. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H | Smilhers, Sir W. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Spearman, A. C. M |
| Carson, E. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | Linstead, H. N. | Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'sities) |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Low, Brig. A. R. W. | Sutcliffe, H |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Lucas, Major Sir J. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. | Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. | Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) |
| Cuthbert, W. N. | McKie, J. H (Galloway) | Thornton-Kemsley, C N |
| Darling, Sir W. Y. | Maclay, Hon. J. S. | Turton, R. H. |
| De la Bère, R. | Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Digby, Major S. W. | Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Sir W. W |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maitland, Comdr. J. W. | Walker-Smith, D. |
| Drayson, G. B. | Marples, A. E. | Ward, Hon. G. R |
| Eden, Rt. Hon. A. | Maude, J. C. | Wheatley, Col M. J |
| Foster, J. G. (Northwich) | Medlicott, Brig. F. | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) | Mellor, Sir J. | Williams, Gerall (Tonbridge) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col C. | Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) | Willink, Rt. Hon H. U. |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Grimston, R. V. | Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) | Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick) |
| Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'dbridge) | Nicholson, G | |
| Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Hogg, Hon Q. | Nutting, Anthony | Mr. Drewe and |
| Mollis, M. C. | Osborne, C. | Mr. Studholme |
Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1066§ Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1067§ SCHEDULE.—(Transitional Provisions.)
§ 5.0 a.m.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out from "and," to "and," in line 27, and to insert:
shall be accompanied by a form of exemption notice.As hon. and right hon. Members know, the Schedule deals with what are described as transitional provisions, and they are designed to produce an easy transition from the present law to the law as it will be if this Bill receives the normal Parliamentary approval. The purpose of this Amendment is to make contracting out a little less difficult for the persons concerned. It deals with the question of the notification to be sent to members acquainting them of their right to be exempt from contributing to the political fund, and the purpose of the provision is so manifest that it hardly requires illustration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite have not had their perception dulled, and I am certain that the more they appreciate the purpose of this Amendment, the more readily will they accept it.If the form of exemption notice accompanies the other notice appropriate to the second paragraph of the Schedule, any person who wishes to use the right which this Bill gives him of contracting out will be able to do so simply by despatching that notice. It absolves the member of a trade union who wishes to exercise his legal right from the necessity which, on the Schedule as drafted, exists, of obtaining his form from some other source. It is important, if intimidation is to be prevented, that he should be given this assistance, and not compelled to go round trying to get hold of a form of exemption notice from the possibly hostile secretary of his local branch.
We have heard, in discussion on earlier Amendments, a good deal about there being no intimidation in connection with contracting in and the contracting out. Hon. Members who have said that now have an opportunity to show their sincerity in the matter. If it is their desire that what they have said is the fact in their unions, should be universally the fact; if it is their desire that the good state of affairs which they say exists in their own unions shall exist in other unions; if it is their desire that there shall 1068 be no intimidation, that there shall be a free use of the right to contract out—if that is their feeling, they should support this Amendment. There can be no objection to the principle of this Amendment save one; the only objection there could be would be the highly cynical one that it made contracting out too easy. If hon. Members are prepared at this late stage to give some evidence, which has been so far lacking, of their sincerity and willingness to ensure that there shall be no intimidation in this matter they will, I am certain, give their support to this Amendment. It is therefore with, a confidence, supported by the new dawn which is coming in and the opportunity which it gives hon. Members opposite of turning over a new leaf, that I move the Amendment.
§ Mr. IsaacsI rise immediately in the hope that I may be able to show the mover of this Amendment that what he proposes will make contracting out for the individual member of a trade union far more difficult than it is now, or ever has been. I am afraid that the hon. Member in drafting the Amendment lost sight of several very important words in the third line of the paragraph of the Schedule in question. This paragraph reads:
Upon the rules of any trade union made for the purposes of the last foregoing paragraph being approved by the Registrar notice shall, in accordance with the rules, be given to the members of the union acquainting them that each member has a right to be exempt from contributing to the political fund of the union.…I happen to have seen the rules of more than one trade union and know their context. Some rules require that notice shall be given by being sent to the branch secretary to be read out at a Branch meeting. Others require that notice to any branch union shall be posted at the pithead, or in the messroom or some other place convenient in the various offices. These notices go out to a branch and I know of one instance where a notice goes out to a branch of 7,000 members. Other notices go to branches of five or six members or more according to the size of the branch. If you leave these words in and give your notice in accordance with the rules, that notice, and only that notice, has to be accompanied by a form of exemption notice. That is the first point, if we take out those words. What if we do not? We shall have said to the union "You shall send out one form of 1069 exemption with your notice, in accordance with your rules, but you shall then take out of this Schedule the authority and the direction to the anion that an exemption form can be obtained by any member by an application or by post or from the registrar." I submit that if we act as this Amendment suggests, we shall make it more difficult for those who wish to contract out to get their forms. In view of that practical proposition that notice must be given in accordance with the rules, I hope the hon. Member w withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. Charles WilliamsI do not contradict the right hon. Gentleman. His statement is probably right. He has proved quite conclusively that at any rate, so far as he is concerned, he does not wish to exercise any pressure in this matter of compulsory payment. As he happens to be in a genial mood—as he generally is, unlike his neighbours on the right and left—I would ask whether, if this Amendment is withdrawn, he cannot follow the line of the Secretary of State for War, who last Friday, in an excellent speech, said he did not wish to exercise any form of compulsion. Many people in this country feel that there is compulsion here. Does the Minister not think he might come to an agreement with the Committee? I am sure that hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, who made such wonderful speeches last Friday, will support me in asking, on this occasion, that there should be no compulsion whatever in regard to this payment, that there should be absolute freedom, as in the case of the Army in relation to the subject of last Friday's announcement. On that occasion the Government laid down the position clearly and well. Why should they not take the same line now on this matter of great principle?
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."
§ 5.15 a.m
§ Mr. HoggI much regret that a full discussion on this important Schedule should have been postponed so long. For the first time we are, in a sense, breaking new ground. Hitherto we have been discussing the repeal of certain parts of the law as it has hitherto existed for nearly 20 years. Now we come to the first provision to the law of the land on this 1070 subject which has been provided by the present Government. It is, therefore, of some interest to the Committee to ascertain what are the political principles underlying this Schedule. The first principle to which I would draw attention appears clearly from the first few words of the Schedule. This provides that
All rules of a trade union made and approved in accordance with the requirements of section three of the Trade Union Act, 1913 (in this Schedule referred to as the Act of 1913 ') as amended by the Act of 1927, shall be amended so as to conform to the requirements of the Act of 1913 as originally enacted…I spare the Committee the rest of the' words in the Schedule, unless the Attorney-General is going to accuse me of being deliberately unfair to the Committee by any omission I may make, because the first point which I desire to, make seems to me to be perfectly simple. On the first opportunity which the Government have of making a positive contribution to the law of the land, they start applying compulsion to the trade unions. They give the trade unions no discretion in this matter at all. It might be that a trade union did not want to amend its rules. It might be that it wanted to amend its rules in some way other than that originally indicated, so that they might have a new set of rules. The Government give no chance. The trade union must amend its rules, or apparently commit some criminal offence. It must not only amend its rules under pain, apparently, of the criminal law, but it must amend its rules so as to put the clock back automatically to before 1927. Could any provision be more absurd than that? It becomes more absurd when one considers what the situation really is. As was said earlier in this discussion, the position which will be created by the Act in combination with this Schedule, is this. Most of the unions of any importance took advantage of the Act of 1913 within the twelve months following its passing. They had ballots at one time and another for the creation of a political fund under that Act. They have not held ballots since. At any rate, this much is certain, that no ballot has been held in any trade union since 1927 for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not a political fund should be the rule.It seems extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite are seriously proposing in the Schedule that trade unions of 1071 respectable standing and long tradition should be compelled, under penalty of the law, to revert to a situation which existed in 1914. That is what hon. Members are reduced to in the Schedule of this Bill. They propose to compel the unions to re-enact rules which were originally undertaken on the strength of a ballot by a majority most of whom must now unfortunately have passed away. I am a little surprised that since they were breaking new ground, the hon. Gentleman opposite did not insert in the Schedule some such provisions as those of the Amendment which was on the Paper but was ruled out of Order. One would have thought that some provision might have been made to ascertain what the wishes of members of the unions are now. One would have thought it would not have been wholly without point to provide for a periodical review so as to prevent matters of this kind recurring. Not a bit of it. Hon. Members are obviously afraid of what the result of the ballot might be in some cases; otherwise they would clearly provide that something less obsolete should be the ultimate test—
§ Mr. Mikardo (Reading)The hon. Member is basing his case to a large extent upon the argument that no political ballots have been taken since 1927. May I point out to him, first, that many such ballots have been taken since 1927; secondly, that I myself have taken part in one during the last twelve months; and, thirdly, they have all had the same result, in favour of affiliation to the Labour Party?
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. Gentleman has not quite followed the point I was endeavouring to make. I will not weary the Committee by repeating it, in order that it may more readily be assimilated by the hon. Member. I simply desire to put the point in this way. Whether or not there may have been cases of affiliation by ballot is, of course, quite immaterial. What is obvious is that if this Schedule is passed, the original ballots, of 1914 for the most part, and of between 1914 and 1927, in regard to the political levy will be the operative ballots for the purpose of this Schedule, and it is nothing short of an iniquity that that should be the position at the present time. We shall have an opportunity later, of discussing an issue of principle raised by this Schedule. Hon. 1072 Members opposite are very fond of talking about majority rule, and the learned Attorney-General has spoken more than once of the minority which, to use his own happy little phrase, it is the contention of hon. Members opposite must toe the line.
§ The Attorney-Generalindicated dissent.
§ Mr. HoggThe hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken; it was his phrase, and if he challenges it, I shall very rapidly find it in his Second Reading speech, either for quotation now or at a later stage. What we are really concerned with in this Schedule is whether or not an organised minority shall be entitled to tyrannise over an unorganised majority, and the whole policy represented by this Bill, and admirably exemplified by this Schedule, is the real contention of the Labour Party, that a highly-organised minority shall be entitled to have its own way over a majority which is in fact unorganised and therefore unable to express itself. That is the contention of totalitarians the world over. The Labour Party may have got the bug a little less badly than the Nazis in Germany, or than some other countries which perhaps it would be wiser not to specify but which admittedly do not enjoy our own democratic régime, but the bug or infection is essentially the same in each case. It is the belief that it is in accordance with democratic institutions that an organised minority should have its own way, and by its action, in one manner or another, prevent the unorganised majority from ever getting together or having its desire in matters of importance to the whole community. On that note I feel we can pass from this Schedule to the Bill, a Bill embodying as it does the principles of folly which the Government have exemplified again and again, in the disgraceful manner in which it has been rushed through.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; to he read the Third time this day.
§ ADJOURNMENT.
§ Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn.''—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Five o'Clock a.m.