STRONG CRITICISM

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 7 May 1927, Page 5

STRONG CRITICISM

TRADE UNION BILL.

MR. SNOWDEN’S SPEECH.

SECOND READING CARRIED.

BY CABLE-PRESS ASSOCIATION-COPYRIGHT LONDON, May 5.

All the galleries were crowded for the final day of the Trade Union Bill debate. Long queues in the lobbies vainly tried to obtain tickets. Mr P. Snowden said that ordinarily he was not disposed to provocative language and invective, 'but be confessed that he felt the restraint most difficult in dealing with the present Bill. Sir Davidi Hogg had shown that he was either ignorant of the pi'ovisions of the clauses, or it had been deliberately ambiguously drafted in order that tbe magistrates might interpret them in accordance with their own prejudices. The Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. Stanley Baldwin) told them that last year’s events and) the prevention of general strikes were the mandate for the Bill, but even, a legal luminary like Sir John Simon was not sure whether it made all sympathetic strikes illegal. Those with practical experience did not doubt it did. “The Bill makes it a criminal offence to coerce the Government,” said Mr Snowden. “What do Governments exist for except to be coerced ? It is the Opposition’s duty to coerce and 1 harass Governments. I can imagine only two circumstances in which a general strike would succeed—first, if the Government entered 1 a war obviously against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the people; and, secondly, where the Government sought, without a mandate, to pass a measure against the wishes of the great majority of the people. Do you think a declaration that a general strike is illegal is going to prevent one of these courses? Not at all! Your pains and penalties will not have the slightest effe't. How are you going to deal with 5,000,000 strikers'? Bring them all to the law courts?” A Conservative interjector: “Take the leaders first.” Mr Sno wden: * ‘The Bill says nothing about dealing with the leadters. The Bill will not prevent general strikes, but will prolong .thorn if they occur. There cannot be imagined anything more likely to promote a generall strike than the Bill, a® in his famous declaration last year Sir John Simon told them the general, strike is at present illegal. Sir David Hogg quoted Mr Justice Astburv’s judgment to the same effect. Why in the name of common sense arouse such bitterness and turn the country into a cauldron of political controversy! The onlv reason for the Bill is that the “diehard” Conservatives have forced' it on the Government. Sir Da.vidl Hogg toldi us that the inclusion of the employers would he useless and inequitable. I agree. No language in any Act can place the workers and: employers on an equal footing. The employers have a thousand means of coercion at their disposal which legislation does not affect. They can close down their works, go short time, and dismiss men without reason. The industrial history of Britain furnished no more glaring instance of organised coercion of the Government than that which the Mine Owners’ Association practised last year. Would to God the Government, instead of throwing this apple of discord, had provided machinery to settle disputes hv reason; in stead of'force. But the Bill will lie forced through: it will cost the countrv more than the general strike.”

WORKERS’ REWARD

ACCORDING TO MR WHEATLEY"

Mr J. Wheatley (Labour) said: “In response to Mr Baldwin’s appeal! for the creation of an atmosphere in which we might secure industrial peace by negotiations, the Labourites responded to the extent of facing humiliation. Their reward is a Bill not designed to secure peace by negotiations, but by police, law courts and prisons. It is one of the most shameful actions of a British statesman.’’ Commander Hilton Young (Liberal') welcomed the Bill as clarifying the law as to general strikes and enlarging the workers’ liberty.

Mr J. H. Thomas (Labour) said: “The Bill destroyed all hopes of industrial peace. Millions of _ decent trade unionists resented it, chiefly because they believed it was a mean and miserable* attempt by the Government to injure their opponents and by a minority Government elected by a f r audu lent letter. ’ ’

BILL PREJUDICIAL TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE.

SAYS MR. LLOYD GEORGE

Mr Lloyd George challenged the wisdom of introducing such a challenging and .provocative Bill at the present time. Doubtless the trade union law needed) amendment and clarification, bub the Bill only muddled old obscurities and created new' ones. Almost every strike in any large ( industry could be held, under the Bill, as an attempt at pressure on the Government. It was the most unwise step possible to introduce it when we were struggling hard to recover lost trade, which was only possible by means of whole-hearted co-operation between the employer's and workmen. The Bill went far beyond Sir David Hogg’s introductory propositions. It used the imperfections of trade union law in order to create an injustice. The Bill did not deal with the real _ needs. There was no real demand for it. even from the employers. It might impound trade union or political funds, hut it would not make the workers work more efficiently. The latter depended on goodwill. Some of the largest captains of industry were opposed to the Bill, root and' branch, as prejudicial to industrial pence, yet . the Government, forgetting our need for trade recovery, introduced the_ Bill purely for the recovery of Toryism.— Aus. Press Assn, and “Sun.”

SECOND HEADING AGP END TO. SHOALS OF AMENDMENTS. FOP COMMITTEE STAGE. LONDON, May 5. Continuing the debate on the Trade Union Bill. Mr. J. H. Thomas said: “If you believe the Bill will prevent striking, vou are deceiving yourselves. The countrv will not thank you for it. I onlv wish you had the courage to test it. You have abused your majority and struck a blow at industrial

peace. We will carry the fight to the country, and win.” Mr. T. W. H. Inskip (Conservative), in replying to the debate, was bombarded with interjections, even when he reiterated that the Bill would improve the workers’ conditions. Xteplying to Mr. P. Snowden’® reference to the impossibility of imprisoning 5,000,000 strikers, he said: “Does not Mr. Snowden know that the law is not administered hy the police, but by the law-abiding character of the race.” He added that the fundamental principle of the Bill was whether the interests of the trade unionists or of the whole country should prevail. If there were ambiguities in the wording, these could be corrected in committee. Sir Douglas Hogg moved the closure, which was carried by 388 votes to 168. Mr. Civnes’ amendments and motion for the rejection of the Bill were defeated by 386 votes to 171, after which the second reading was agreed to. Conservatives and Labour members voted strictly on party lines. The Liberals were split, seven voting with the Conservatives and 19 with Labour. Sir John Simon abstained from voting. Shoals of amendments in the committee stage were lodged immediately, the Liberal and Labour members being responsible for nearly 250. The latter will move to omit each clause in turn, and alternatively to postpone the dates on which the proposals become operative. Sixteen Unionists have given notice of amendments to include lock-outs as well as strikes. LOOK-OUTS TO BE MADE ILLEGAL Received 10 a.m. to-day LONDON, May 6. The Attorney-General, Sir David Hogg, gave notice of an amendment to the Trades Union Bill for the committee stage, declaring illegal any lock-out designed to inflict hardship on the community.