TRADE DISPUTES BILL. (Hansard, 14 December 1906)

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
moved an Amendment to that sub-section of Clause 4 which provided that nothing 811 in the clause should affect the liability of the trustees of a trade union to be sued in the events provided for by the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 9, "except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute." He proposed to strike out the words quoted, in order to insert, "Provided that the said trustees shall not be made liable in any action for any tortious act committed for or on behalf of the union where such tortious act does not touch or concern the property, right, or claim to property of the trade union." He said that he was not now contesting the principle of Clause 4 or the method by which the clause gave effect to the principles involved. He only raised the question whether the clause did not go beyond the avowed intentions of the Bill's promoters. The effect of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 was simply to place the trustees of trade-union funds in exactly the same position as other owners of property. They were to have the same rights and the same liabilities. The object of the sub-section which he proposed to amend was to protect the trade union funds from being taken for debt or damages. Supposing, in the course of a trade dispute, some premises occupied by a union were to be wrecked or damaged. The union were not the owners of the premises, and he suggested that by the words in the Bill the landlord would be deprived of any remedy he might have for securing the safety of his property. Again, supposing the trustees of a trade-union building, perhaps the property of the union, were to allow the premises to be used for an improper purpose, to become a nuisance to the neighbourhood. He suggested that by the words of the clause the neighbours could take no action and would possess no remedy. The object of the Amendment was to provide a remedy for these and similar cases.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said that the point raised was an important one, and it had been stated by the noble Lord with admirable clearness. It was not an Amendment intended to be hostile to the principles of the Bill; as he understood it, the Amendment simply intended to make clear an extremely difficult and intricate point of law. He thought that the language of the clause was less scientific than he would like to see, and, speaking for himself, he believed that the language of the noble Lord's Amendment was preferable to the language of the Bill. He was disposed to recommend it, therefore, to the attention of the Government in order that it might be fully considered by the numerous experts in the other House, and to see whether or not his view was the right one. Of course, he could not pledge the Government ultimately to accept the noble Lord's words, but he promised to bring the Amendment before his colleagues with a view to its incorporation in the Bill.

§ LORD ASHBOURNE
thought the course indicated by the noble and learned Lord was a very convenient one for their Lordships to adopt.

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
moved to amend the definition of the expression "trade dispute" so as to make it read "the expression "trade dispute" means any dispute between employers and workmen, and servants or persons employed in any trade or industry whether in such employers' employment or not, which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour of any person." He said that his views upon this subject were expressed when the Bill was in Committee, and he had in no way abated the strength of those views. He believed, however, that the words which he now moved would be acceptable to His Majesty's Government; he sincerely hoped that they would meet the point which he and his noble friends had in mind, and added that if this Amendment was agreed 813 to he would move to strike out Clause 6, which provided that the Bill should not apply with regard to disputes connected with land, and was inserted in Committee on his own Motion.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
held strongly himself that Clause 6 went very much further than the Amendment now proposed; but with regard to that Amendment, he desired to adopt the same attitude as he adopted on the last Amendment. He did not see that it altered in any prejudicial sense the meaning of the clause, and he was willing to recommend it also to the consideration of the Government in the other House.