HC Deb 01 April 1946 vol 421 cc839-53

Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th February.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1. —Repeal of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 72 and restoration of law in force before that Act.)

3.47 P.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning, to insert: With the exception of Subsection (4) of Section three. The Committee will remember that on the last occasion when the Bill was before us—it is some time ago—we discussed the first three Subsections of Section 3 of the Act of 1927, but the fourth Sub section appeared to us to raise a separate point of view of limited extent but of great importance, and it, therefore, appeared to us to be worthy of further discussion. The Subsection enacts: 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 or the approach to such a house or place. Then follows the punishment for contravention. Let me assume for the purpose of this argument that the Committee was right in restoring the old law with regard to the picketing of works or places of business; let me assume it is right that a man who wishes to work should be subject to anything short of physical violence or threat of physical violence in order to bring him into line with a more powerful section, if not the majority of his fellows. Surely even on those assumptions, with which I cannot agree, there is everything to be said for drawing a distinction between the factory or works on the one hand, and the man's house on the other. Why should any body of workpeople wish to beset a man's house? One assumes that they believe that they have a righteous cause, otherwise they would not be so engaged. But surely in this democratic country, where considerable powers of persuasion exist, where it may be possible to intercept, persuade and almost bully a man when he tries to go to work, the wife and family of such a man should be left in peace and quietness. It seems a very strange thing that trade unions at this time of the day should wish this extra power. There was a time when trade unions did not occupy the great place they do now in this country. There was a time when they were less powerful and less familiar to all of us. Today when trade unions are on the crest of the wave, when they believe that the great majority of the workers support them—I do' not agree—to say that it is essential that trade unions should be entitled not only to bully a man at the works gates and prevent him from going on with his work, but also to make the life of his wife and family a misery, seems to be an odd sidelight on their views of freedom and decency.

I await with interest a statement of the practical justification for giving this power. I would remind Members opposite that not all strikes lately have been backed by the official unions. If this Subsection goes, that power would apply not only to a strike which has the official backing of the unions, but also to an unofficial strike, and is much more likely to be used, in an unofficial strike, in a high-handed way. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour really thinks it a good thing that loyal trade unionists, who want to follow the orders of their unions and stay at work, should have their houses beset and their families' lives made a misery by an unofficial strike? That is the state of things to which this proposal is opening the door, and I should have thought that that was bad policy from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view In 1931, when the Party opposite introduced a Bill to amend the Trade Disputes Act, that Bill proposed that this Subsection should be left on the Statute Book. One can see why. I think the Labour Party of those days drew the distinction which I am seeking to draw now —that it was not reasonable to ask that this high-handed power to affect people in their private lives at home should be conferred on anybody.

I draw attention to another rather significant matter. In 1927, when the original Bill was being fought, and fought hard by the Party opposite, some 26 days of the time of the House was consumed in dealing with that Measure, three of the days being spent on Clause 3. Not a word was said attacking this Subsection. I looked up the records. I may have missed a phrase here or there, but so far as I could see there were three whole days of attack on Clause 3 of the Bill without any Member of the Labour Party saying that Subsection (4)—the one to which I am now addressing myself—was in any way oppressive or objectionable:

It being the attitude of the Labour Party in 1927, that they bitterly opposed the rest of the Clause, but did not seem to have minded much about this bit, in 1931, that they proposed the repeal of the rest of the Clause but not of this bit, it seems to me that there is a case today for hon. Members opposite taking the same view, and leaving this part of the original Section alone. Is this a matter to be argued out on the lines of trying to make the law of this country what it should be in the minds of Members opposite, or must our better judgment be overwhelmed by this shibboleth that "the whole Act must go? "Of course, if Members opposite allow their minds to be closed to reason because of a 20 year-old prejudice, then I can understand them voting for the repeal of this Subsection. But I look forward with some interest to a practical justification for conferring this great and objectionable power on those who may, and probably will, misuse it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) has already explained how this Clause came into existence. It had nothing to do with the general strike at all. It relates to matters long anterior to that. My right hon. Friend has a unique knowledge of the history of these affairs. If Members t opposite want to remove all trace of legislation which was consequent on the general strike then they need not remove this part, because it does not refer to the general strike. There was as we know little, if any, reason for using a power of this sort in the course of the general strike, because that strike was conducted, as we all remember, with great good humour on the part of the strikers, who were very law-abiding. As regards that strike there was little if any need for this Subsection, which arose from other strikes, in which tempers were hotter. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why retain it? "] Perhaps the hon. Member was not here when my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities explained the point in great detail. At that time, I did not understand that anybody opposite was in a position to contradict him; at least, nobody did. I do not propose to add to what my right hon. Friend then said, unless somebody wants to contradict him—

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I do.

Mr. Reid

I am looking forward to hearing the practical justification for the argument in favour of repeal of this Subsection. I do not want to detain the Committee longer, because all argument is in favour of retention of this Subsection, whatever view one takes about the rest of the Act. Up to date, we have heard nothing in defence of this, except that it should go with all the rest. If that is the way we must now legislate we shall not improve the law very much. I therefore ask the Minister to think again about this subject.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

It seems that this Amendment, at the outset, raises an issue which will probably confront us on every other Amendment to the Bill, namely, whether we are to approach all Amendments, including this one, on the basis that what we want is repeal of the 1927 Act and nothing else—whether we want that or nothing. Obviously, we shall have one point of view on the merits of any Amendment if that is so. But if one takes another view—as I do—the view I expressed on the Second Reading Debate, namely, that, having made the gesture of carrying the repeal of the 1927 Act, we ought to be prepared to look at Amendments on their merits, then we shall probably take a different view of some of these Clauses.

4.0 p.m.

I voted on the Second Reading for the repeal of the 1927 Act, but I made it clear then and wish to make it clear again today, especially to hon. Members oppo site, that we should make the biggest mistake in the world if we did not look at some of these Amendments on their merits. I take that view because I want to see, when this Bill is through, a more or less permanent settlement of trade union legislation in Britain. I do not want to see the Bill carried in such a form in this Parliament that in the next Parliament, or in the one after that, with possibly another Government in power—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members may smile, but political fortune very often changes. I ask hon. Members to envisage the possibility that, unless we look at Amendments on their merits, we may find that a subsequent Government will bring in a Bill to repeal the Bill which is now before us. In other words, what we shall probably get is error evoking counter error to the continued instability of trade union legislation. Therefore, I take the view that we should consider these things on their merits, and I announce that, having voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, I shall vote on these Amendments on their merits as I think right.

I now announce that I shall vote for this Amendment. I shall do so for two reasons. The first is that I think it will be quite unnecessary for the trade union movement in Britain ever again to beset the houses of individual members as to whether they should or should not take part in a dispute. If a trade union, in order to get a man to join in a dispute, has to carry the conflict on to his doorstep, and upset the "missus and the kids," in my opinion the trade union is very much better without the support of that man in any dispute into which it enters. I regret to say this is not an academic question. When the former Lord President of the Council, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), stated that there was an abundance of evidence filed at the Home Office dealing with past incidents of this kind which reflected badly on the trade union movement, he was saying what many of us know to be true. I saw examples of this no longer ago than the last General Election and no farther away than my own constituency. That is the first reason I support this Amendment. I do not think we ought to restore the law to a condition in which men may be beset on their doorsteps and their wives and children harassed. It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. This sort of thing happens

Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)

Has the hon. Gentleman ever taken part in a dispute, particularly in a village, and sat upon a doorstep talking to a fellow worker and thereby made himself liable under this Section, although he was talking in the most friendly way possible?

Mr. Brown

I do not happen to live in a village, and I am not familiar with all aspects of village life. I have seen what happens in towns, and if I am challenged, I will produce examples. I do not want to do so, because it is not part of my business to invoke passion in this Debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give the examples."] I will give an example dating from the last General Election, in my division, where a member of the Labour Party, who had supported me in the 1942 by-election, declared his intention of supporting me in the General Election. Enormous and unwarranted pressure was brought to bear upon him by the Labour machine, and when that pressure which they brought to bear upon the man failed, it was transferred to his wife on the doorstep.

Mr. John Paton (Norwich)

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that this particular instance, the only instance apparently. that he can bring before the Committee—

Mr. Brown

No.

Mr. Paton

—could be called a trade dispute and come under the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1937?

Mr. Brown

I suggest that it is not a figment of the imagination—[Interruplion.] If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) wishes to interrupt me, will he get up and do so?

Mr. S. Silverman

I know that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) always advances a serious argument, and I ask him a question because I want to follow him. Is he asking us to say that what happens in an election campaign is at all comparable with what happens in a trade dispute? There was no trade dispute going on in his constituency, and this law did not apply.

Mr. Brown

I should have thought it was possible to consider things in principle and to understand things by analogy as well as directly. [Interruption.] When some hon. Members opposite have been in the House a little longer, they will learn that I will not be intimidated. I assert, on the authority of a former Home Secretary and an ex-civil servant, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities, that there is an abundance of material at the Home Office showing that this Lind of thing has gone on. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give some examples—] If I were to give examples—[Interruption.]

The Chairman

Hon. Members must permit the hon. Member to continue his speech

Mr. Brown

I was about to say that if I were to give an instance from the files of the Home Office, there are hon. Members opposite who would get up and charge me with a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross)

I think I can assist the hon. Member. I believe it is a fact that nobody can be prosecuted under that Act without my authority, and I will here and now exonerate him.

Mr. Brown

In these days we travel last. Up to now the Attorney-General has been the adviser of the House on the law; now he is the exonerator of criminals.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford)

On a point of Order, Major Milner. The Attorney-General has made an extremely important remark. May we take it he will now advise the Home Secretary to lay the files on the Table, in order that we may see the instances?

The Chairman

That is not a point of Order

Mr. Hogg

Further to my point of Order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down."] May I ask for your protection, Major Milner, against the rowdies opposite? As I understood the position, what took place between the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) and the Attorney-General was that the hon. Member for Rugby was challenged by hon. Members opposite to produce a document—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the hon. Member was challenged to produce an instance from the files in the Home Office, which, he contended, would be a breach of the Official Secrets Act.

If he did not say that, I am open to correction. The second stage, if I understood aright, was that the Attorney-General rose in his place and said he was prepared to withold his consent from any prosecution instituted against the hon. Member for Rugby if he took up the challenge. There are files in existence in respect of which the learned Attorney-General has now said that his fiat will not be forthcoming, and in my submission, on a point of Order, we are not only entitled to ask that these papers should be laid on the Table of the House but the learned Attorney-General is bound to comply, inasmuch as they have been cited by a Minister.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is mistaken. Papers have to be laid on the Table only if quoted by a Minister and if this is not contrary to public interest That is not this case.

Mr. Hogg

rose—

The Chairman

We cannot have repeated points of Order.

Mr. W. J. Brown

I am speaking today under circumstances of some difficulty. What with the passion on the other side of the Committee to deny what I am saying, and the efforts on this side to interpret it, when I have said it, life is extremely difficult. But may I conclude this portion of my argument by making the point that if hon. Members on the other side are sincere—as I have every reason to believe they are—and if they are right, which I very much doubt, in saying that this kind of thing never happens, they can have no possible objection to the carrying of the Amendment now before the Committee.

Mr. S. Silverman

The hon. Member said a few moments ago that there had been a number of instances of intimidation of this kind and when hon. Members on this side of the Committee asked him to cite only one example, he proceeded to describe one which obviously had nothing to do with the argument. When he was pressed he relied on the Official Secrets Act. Will he not give us one single instance?

Mr. Brown

I do not object to this, but the hon. Gentleman opposite really must not—I was going to say pervert, but that would be the wrong word—distort my argument in order to make his debating point more effective. I was asked at an earlier stage—[Interruption]. if ever I doubted that I was right in freeing myself from any kind of party ties in this House, this has convinced me. It is obvious that there are a number of hon. Members in the Committee today suffering from nervous irritability.

Mr. George Hicks (Woolwich, East)

With regard to the illustration of intimidation on the doorstep given by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown), is that not the way in which all political elections are won? Canvassing on the doorstep.

Mr. Brown

I am always willing to give way to hon. Members opposite and I do not think I have been unduly unfair in this discussion today, but I should be grateful if I were allowed to deal with this part of my argument. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) asks if this is not the way in which all political elections are fought.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

The hon. Member said "won.'

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Brown

For the next ten minutes I should be very grateful for passive no cooperation. A Prime Minister of Britain said once, "It does not matter much what we say, provided we all say the same thing." Do hon. Gentlemen opposite say that elections are won by this kind of thing, or is it their position that this kind of thing never happens? They cannot have it both ways. If it never happens at all, there is no conceivable objection to keeping on the Statute Book a provision that it should not happen. That is the last argument I want to use in that connection.

In the conduct of its affairs in the House of Commons the Party opposite recognises that circumstances alter cases. For example—I do not want to rejoice at this and I compliment the Party opposite on having done it—they have, during this Session, modified the Order which deals with the regular procedure in this House. They have departed from the earlier position on the ground that circumstances have changed. The position of the trade union movement has also changed. It is now a firmly established part of the organic life of Britain, recognised and conceded on every hand. It is treated by Governments of all political complexions, almost as a "high contracting party "—and certainly as a party that has to he consulted in all matters touching the interests of workmen in Britain. Its position today is so strong and so secure, that It can afford to wash its hands of any suspicion whatever of favouring the kind of thing which this Amendment tries to prevent. The Party would be wise, from the trade union point of view, not to put itself in the position of appearing to wish to assume powers under which all sorts of things have happened in Britain, and which I am perfectly certain most hon. Members opposite would rather did not happen so far as they have anything to do with it. For all those reasons I hope we shall carry this Amendment. I take the view that the Government are entitled to get their dramatic declaration about the general repeal. For that reason I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill and supported it in a speech. I said then, however, and I maintain, that, having got that gesture, we should, as a matter of sober common sense, utilise the discussions on the Committee stage to put trade unions in Britain on a firm, unassailable, and permanent basis which can be done in my view only if we treat Amendments to the detailed provisions of the Bill, from whatever quarter they come, on their merits. It is my judgment of the merits of this Amendment, that it should be carried and I shall vote for it.

Mr. S. Silverman

I always listen with great attention and respect to any argument coming from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), because I realise that on whichever side his speech is made it is always prompted by an independent approach to the question—I use the word in a completely non-political sense—and that it is based, if I may say so, on a position of intellectual integrity. The hon. Member does not advance arguments, or support or reject Amendments, on any other basis. That is why I was so surprised to find him on what I think is clearly the wrong side this afternoon. I will deal with the last part of his speech in a few moments. The earlier part of it is the clearest possible indication of how little there is of merit in the Amendment before the Committee. If the acceptance of the Amendment can be justified at all, it is only on the clearest proof that this provision in the 1927 Act is so vitally necessary that it ought to be preserved, even if nothing else in it is preserved. It could only be shown to be vitally necessary if it were proved that, in its absence, things have taken place systematically, that ought not to have taken place, and that nobody would wish to take place. In neither of the speeches which we have heard has there been one instance of any kind of intimidation of this kind which happened in the past, and which, but for the Subsection, would happen in the future. The hon. Member was less than fair to this side of the Committee in dealing with the interruption. I admit that he was considerably provoked, and that there was a good deal of interruption.

Mr. Brown

I was provoked because of a monstrous inversion of history

Mr. Silverman

I did not know that history had yet recorded what has been happening. I am saying that the hon. Member's speech was considerably interrupted from this side of the Committee. No doubt there was provocation, but I have never known the hon Member resent it in the past. In fact, he usually enjoys it. In this case the provocation was justified. The hon. Member said he would give instances out of his own experience but that he had not the time to do so. He said that if he were challenged he would do so. We challenged him to do his worst, and tell us the worst instances within his experience. We were prepared to suffer such political prejudice as would follow. The hon. Member then mentioned one instance only, but it had nothing to do with intimidation, nothing to do with the present Bill and nothing to do with a trade dispute at all. It was nothing that would be affected by the Bill or by the act of 1927. The hon. Member referred to something done in the course of an election by way of canvassing on a doorstep. [HON. MEMBERS: Alleged."] Alleged, but I accept his word for it. Would the hon. Member propose to abolish convassing in elections in order to eliminate the possibility of such a thing happening in his constituency? If he is not suggesting that, I do not know why he should have mentioned it Even if such a thing could be prevented. it would not be prevented by the Bill If the Amendment were unanimously accepted, and the hon. Member resigned his seat and fought Rugby again, the same kind of instance would happen again tomorrow morning.

When we challenged him again—[Interruption.] I hope the Committee will let me pursue this point, because opposition from the hon. Member for Rugby is more important to me than opposition from Members of the Party above the Gangway opposite. When we challenged him, and said that his previous instance had nothing to do with what he had said he was going to do, the hon. Member referred to the Official Secrets Act. As he had promised to give us an instance out of his personal experience, I cannot see what the Official Secrets Act has to do with it. If a man tells us what he knows in his own experience, that is not an official secret, unless he officially refuses to tell us. Even if the Official Secrets Act had been involved, so that, in spite of the hon. Member's well known courage, he might have felt afraid to say what he had in mind, not being sufficiently protected in making his contribution, the Attorney-General gave himcarte blanche.

Mr. W. J. Brownm

Surely the hon. Member must recognise that I am not the only repository of knowledge and information on cases of this kind. We had the word also of a very distinguished civil servant of long standing. I should be the last to challenge his integrity or probity. He is an ex-Home Secretary, and he said that there was abundance of material in the Home Office on this point. My hon. Friends opposite are not going to get away from that fact by merely challenging me to adduce instances from the past which I am in no position to do on the Floor of this Committee. Either things have occurred which this Bill would stop, or they have not, in which case the Government do not need to repeal this Subsection.

Mr. Silverman

The hon. Member is dealing now with his general argument, to which I hope to come in a moment. At this point I am not dealing with what a former Home Secretary has said, but with what was said by the hon. Member. We invited him to say what he had in mind when he suggested that he was afraid of the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney-General gave himcarte blanche to say anything he knew.

Mr. Brown

The Attorney-General is not almighty.

Mr. Silverman

For the purposes of the Official Secrets Act, he is almighty. Action cannot be taken but on the fiat of the Attorney-General.

Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington. South)

What authority has the Attorney-General to do anything till information is laid before him? Had he any right to givecarte blanche to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown)?

Mr. Silverman

Under the Official Secrets Act a person may be prosecuted for divulging an official secret only if the Attorney-General says that he shall be prosecuted. Unless the Attorney-General does so, there can be no prosecution. That is what is provided in the Official Secrets Act.

Vice-Admiral Taylor

Can the Attorney-General give his decision before the facts are laid before him?

Mr. Silverman

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me if I do not pursue the point in great detail.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

On a point of Order. Would you give your Ruling, Major Milner, on this point? Is it not a fact that in any event, statements made in the House of Commons can never be the basis of a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?

The Chairman

Probably, but I do not think that point really arises and I am not here to interpret the law.

Mr. Silverman

I do not think a man could be prosecuted successfully for anything he did in the House of Commons, and I think the hon. Member for Rugby is aware of the fact. I agree that he had to be prudent, and not run a risk of prosecution. The only risk he could have run was of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, and then only if the Attorney-General had said so

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

I agree with the view that has been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). On the assumption, however, that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) was justified in his caution in putting his point, is the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) seriously suggesting that the Attorney-General's undertaking not to give his fiat would bind his successor?

Mr. Silverman

I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that there, is a time limit under the Official Secrets Act beyond which no prosecution can be brought. However long the life of the present Government may be, I have no doubt that it would last long enough to protect the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). On any grounds, the hon. Member for Rugby could have given us any instance he liked without running the slightest risk and he has given us none—none at all. I think that is for a very good reason. It is because instances of that kind either do not exist of are so rare as not to constitute a political problem. There is proof of it. The proof is not conclusive perhaps, but it has a very strong influence on the history of the matter. The law of intimidation was settled by the 1913 Act, and between 1913 and 1927 nobody complained of it. I challenge anybody in this House on either side to say that, if there had been no General Strike, and if that General Strike had not led to the passing of the 1927 Act, Subsection (4) of Section 3 would not by itself have justified legislation in 1927 or at all.

Colonel Ropner (Barkston Ash)

Does the hon. Gentleman say there were no complaints about the working of the Act prior to 1927?

Mr. Silverman

I am saying that in the period 1913 to 1926 there was no agitation for an alteration of the law of intimidation which would have led the Government of 1927, apart from the General. Strike, to introduce legislation on the lines of Section 3, Subsection (4) alone.