HC Deb 05 March 1948 vol 448 cc706-7
Mr. J. Griffiths

I beg to move in page 36, line 24, at the end, to insert: (2) For the purposes of this Section a person shall not be deemed to refuse or neglect to maintain himself or any other person by reason only of anything done or omitted in furtherance of a trade dispute. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) spoke to me, and also wrote to me, during the' proceedings on this Bill in Standing Committee, calling my attention to the fact that it might be possible, even under this Measure and its provisions, for something to be attempted in the future such as was done many years ago, in the famous or rather infamous Merthyr Tydfil case, when a man was summoned for wilfully failing to maintain his wife and children because he had taken part in a trade dispute. I promised that I would look at the matter, and if I felt it desirable and essential, move an Amendment. I considered whether I should accept the hon. Member's Amendment in the terms set down, but I am advised that the purpose which he and I, and other hon. Members in this House, have in mind is better served by the words of this Amendment.

Mr. Blyton (Houghton-le-Spring)

I support the Amendment put down by the Minister because, as he will remember, I raised this important problem in the Standing Committee. It will mean that the trade unionists of this country will be released from the sword of Damocles that has hung over them, although it has not been used since 1900. It will now mean that a striker will no longer be liable to be charged with failing to maintain his wife and himself during the period of a strike. Although this power has not been used since 1900, under the old Poor Law it was possible for future Governments to do the same as the Powell Duffryn Company did in 1900, and get a declaration in the High Court that a striker who was persistently refusing to maintain his wife and child would be liable to three months imprisonment. I congratulate the Minister, and assure him that trade unionists throughout the country will be grateful for the removal of this long-threatened stigma of imprisonement if they dared to strike for improved wages and conditions.

Mr. Thomas Brown (Ince)

I wish to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). We in the mining industry were greatly disturbed by the original Clause in the Bill, and representations have been made to the Minister for the Clause to be amended. We do not anticipate any protracted disputes in the mining industry, or any other industry, but from experience of the past we thought that the Clause should be amended. I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister. He has relieved the disturbed state of mind of trade unionists in this country.

Amendment agreed to.