ANTI-STRIKE LAW

Grey River Argus, 1 May 1944, Page 3

ANTI-STRIKE LAW

PROSECUTIONS IN BRITAIN. LONDON, April 28. Newcastle magistrates remanded in custody for 21 days four persons who were arrested after a raid by New-castle-on-Tyne police and charged with conspiracy under the Trades Disputes Act. The accused were described as LamberJ Heaton Lee, Angel Rosalie Ethel Keen, Rawling Terse, who was secretary of the Military Workers’ Federation and James Ritchie Haston, who surrendered to the Edinburgh police. All were charged that they “did conspire to combine, confederate and agree together with other persons to act m furtherance of a strike declared by the Trades Disputes Act to be illegal.” Counsel for the accused said that all the accused strongly denied that they were guilty In the House of Commons, a motion to cancel the new defence regulations which prescribe heavy penalties for people who start strikes affecting essential industries was moved by Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Labour), who described the regulations as a stab in the back fot the forces. It would have been better, he said, if this order had not been made. Parliament would not then have been called upon to distract the attention of the nation from the great crisis the war was now reaching to matters of such painful domestic concern. Mr. David Kirkwood (Labour) said that the Minister of Labour, by his action had betrayed all the good work he had done in his life.

Captain E. C. Cobb (National Conservative) said he firmly believed that if strikes, which the regulation was designed to prevent, were allowed to continue it would inevitably add to the shortage of supplies needed by the armed forces. He had no clou nr. that the bulk of unrest and disturpance was a direct result of considerable activities by agitators. Mr. G. L. Reakes (Independent) said nine out of ten people were delighted to think that the Government, at long last, was coming to grins with this strike question. Mr. Arthur Greenwood (Labour) said that there was no trade union leader he had met who did not deplore the fact that the regulation had to be issued. It was not that they desired it, but a very large majority had come to realise the inevitability of a regulation of this kind. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin) said that in 1940 he had asked every executive of trade unions to forego strikes and accept abritration for the duration of the war and a conference had agreed unanimously. He added: ‘‘.lt is to the eterna credit of the trade union movement that not a single executive has paid one penny strike pav to support a strike since that day.’* Referring to the recent strikes, Mr. Bevin said that he was not prepared to accent that their simultaneous development was just coincident. “Whv did strikes occur in industries dealing with the things most vitally necessary in the prosecution of trie war?” he asked. ‘‘Whv were certai industries selected and who, when the branches decided to retuin W work, organised pickets to meet tne members in the road and hait them. Those things were not done by tne ordinary trade union members. I. c. war of this character biggest crime is mach nation ana to get other people to take part m a The motion was lost by 314 votes i to 2S. —