Evening Post. THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1927. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 139, 16 June 1927, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1927. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

The House of Commons has got to work again after its Whitsuntide recess and resumed the consideration of the Trade Union Bill. Yesterday's report gave the first indication of any approach to a conciliatory spirit in the treatment of this nercely contested measure, but it was not strong enough to produce any legislative effect. From the Government side, of the House Sir L. Scott, K.C., proposed a new clause making illegal any strike or lock-out in essential services prior to or during the reference of a dispute to a conciliation tribunal. This clause he described as "an attempt at something constructive in the direction of the settlement of disputes," and he might have added that it was the first attempt of the kind during the progress of the Bill. The clause was supported by Sir Alfred Mond on one side of the House and by Commander Kenworthy on the other. Sir Alfred Mond commended a" proposal which, he said, "followed the legislative provisions of "the Dominions which avoided numberless strikes," and he expressed the hope that Britain would ultimately adopt compulsory arbitration "like Australia." It would be like Australia, we may note in passing, but it would be like New Zealand also. Was the pioneer Dominion overlooked by Sir Alfred Mond, or does his Imperial geography treat it as a part of Australia? Another injustice to New Zealand in either case!

From the Labour benches Commander Kenworthy emphasised New Zealand's grievance by referring to Canada and Australia for examples of compulsory conciliation, but his compliment to Sir L. Scott as haying provided "the most useful day- devoted to the Bill" sounded a note which it was good to hear from a Labour member. But these Indorsements of Sir L. Scott's, proposal do not appear to have received any support, and it is perhaps significant that his only backers were two men who recently showed their independence of mind by leaving the Liberals in order to join the Conservative and the Labour Parties respectively. The reception given to the clause by the Opposition leaders served rather to emphasise the bitter spirit in which the Bill is being fought. In a speech which implied approval of the proposal Mr. CJynes,- who leads the Labour Party in Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald's place and is a less emotional and- more level-headed man, merely used the clause to point a taunt against the Government.

If, the Government had wanted industrial harmony, ho said, it would have proceeded on the lines of the now clause, instead of tho introduction of a Bill which had gone far to crush tho spirit of conciliation. On bfhalf of the Liberals, who -like the Labour Party have been glad to find in opposition to the Bill the chance of forgetting their internal dissensions, Mr. Lloyd George adopted much the same attitude as Mr. Clynes. Though a Bill along the lines of Sir L. Scott's clause would, in his opinion, have beeif "worth tons of the Trade Union Bill," he agreed with Mr. Clynes that "it was unfortunate to link safe conciliation proposals with such a provocative Bill." Does not this come perilously near to the principle on which Oppositions have been known to proceed before, that the worse a Government Bill is, the better?

The attitude of the Government itself may, however, be held to have justified a more favourable interpretation of Mr. Lloyd George's words. While prepared to welcome machinery to prevent disputes coming to a head, Sir Arthur Steel Maitland said that the Government could not accept the amendment.

They did not desiro to do more, ho said, than deal with the situation arising from the General Strike. They did not wish to go further in preventing the right to strike than the avoidance of a recurrence of last year's trouble. '

Standing alone, these words might be taken to mean that the Government did not desire to carry its proposals for preventing another general strike any further than the negative and punitive provisions of the Bill. It certainly would have been better to say that the object which Sir L Scott had in view would require an Act rather than a clause, and that the Government would therefore prefer to deal with it separately. But Sir Arthur SteelMaitland committed the Government to something better than mere negation when he offered, if the new clause were withdrawn, to have a committee appointed to consider the improvement of the machinery for industrial conciliation. The clause was accordingly withdrawn, but not before Labour's reply to the offer had made matters far worse.

Labour, said Mr. Clynes, would not accept the arrangement as a supplement instead of a substitution for the Bill. .If they wanted a really representative committee the Government ought to withdraw the Bill.

Mr. J. H. Thomas, who is generally regarded as the most independent and broad-minded of the Labour leaders, confirmed the most drastic construction of these words by declaring that "no responsible trade unionist would sit on the committee with the Bill overhanging them." Business done : # The Trade Union Bill guillotined through its Committee stage, and instead of "peace in our time" the passions of the combatants inflamed more fiercely than ever.