TRADES UNION BILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20089, 4 May 1927, Page 9

TRADES UNION BILL

SECOND READING DEBATE. ROWDY SCENES IN PARLIAMENT. DISTURBANCE BY LABOUR SECTION. MEMBERS THREATENED WITH EXPULSION. (Preifl AMOCdatlon—By Telegraph—Copyright ) LONDON, May 2. Sir Douglas Hogg (Attorney-general), before a full House and crowded peers' and strangers’ galleries, moved the second reading of the Trades Union Bill. He said that the main principles were—first, that a general strike was illegal, and nobody should be penalised for refusal to participate; secondly, that intimidations to make a man leave work were illegal; thirdly, that nobody should be compelled to subscribe to the funds of any political party unless he desired to do so; and, fourthly, that civil servants must give full allegiance to the State. He asked: “Is anyone prepared to assert that any of . these propositions is wrong?” Mr Jack Jones (Lab.): Yes. Amid Labour interruptions Mr Jones remained standing. The Speaker interjected: “I may as ■well tell you that unless yon are willing to listen to the debate you will not be present to participate in It. Mr Jack Jones: Ido not care. You ean chuck me out now if you like. Amid frequent interruptions Sir Douglas Hogg went on to deal with the illegality of last year’s genera] strike, and Mr Justice Astbury’s decision. Mr J. H. Thomas (Lab.) : Is it not a fact that Mr Justice Astbury never had the question of the general strike before him ? , Sir Douglas Hogg: I think you are mistaken. Mr W. Thome (Lab.): Stick to the truth. You are telling lies all through. • The Speaker; If you cannot control yourself you must not remain in the House. Mr Thome: Then let him keep to the ' truth'. Sir Douglas Hogg contended that a large section of the Labourites still regarded the general strike as a'weapon, and they intended to use it in the future, like an Edison-Bell record. It was the Government’s duty to make clear, beyond any possibility of doubt, that a general strike was illegal. Sympathetic strikes remained legal if directed against employers, and not against the State and the community. The only reason why general lock-outs were not included in the clause dealing ■with general services wu that the former were never likely to happen. If one did occur th© Government bad the power under the Emergency Acts to take over the works. Though a general strike was hard to define, he knew one when ho saw it. The Labour interruptions increased, and the Speaker threatened several members with expulsion. Sir Douglas Hogg said it was asserted that the political levy clause was unnecessary because exemption from payments was available, and on the contrary it was objected that the claus© would cripple the unions. Both propositions could not be •true. Mr Jonee: What a brain' I Sir Douglas Hogg’s next remark was drowned by Labour yells, “Withdraw.” The Speaker again intervened. Mr-Jones: Wait till he has done lying about the Bill. The Speaker: I have warned you several times. I must call upon you to withdraw immeditely. Mr Jones: I am going now, sir, but, I will be here when Sir Douglas Hogg and his crowd have gone with him. He then left the House, shouting, “It’s * hog’s Bill. ’ ’ When Sir Douglas Hogg again arose to continue he was received with Labour shouts: “Divide.” Sir Douglas Hogg’ continued that the Clause dealing with Civil servants was necessitated by the history of last May, when State officials were actively engaged in fomenting rebellion against the strike. Labour cries: “Rubbish.” Sir Douglas Hogg: This is intolerable. The civil service must be free from party political ties. Continuing, he said that the sixth clause forbade public authorities insisting employees must belong to particular unions. To the revolutionary section of the community the Bill was necessarily abhorrent, but the opposition represented a larger and more moderate section of Labour. It was disappointing to find this section was unwilling to join. If the moderate Labourites had the moral courage to co-operate to remedy the deficiencies of the Bill their help would be welcomed. The Government believed that the Bill was just and necessary. It vindicated the authority of Parliament, the freedom of the State, and protected the working man. —A. and N.Z. Cable.

THE LABOUR VIEWPOINT. AMENDMENT TO REJECT BILL. • LONDON, May 2. . Mr J. R. Clynes (Lab.), in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that the Bill might be excusable if it were panic legislation, but on the contrary it was a deliberate act of class hostility. The intimation of willingness to include lock-outs was a surrender to the rather shamefaced criticism of some of the Government’s supporters. It would be the duty of the Opposition, when it became the Government, to repeal the measure, because he believed it to be a maligant endeavour on the part of the Government to back up organised Capital in the struggles with organised Labour. The Bill was not due to last year’s general strike.—A. and N.Z. and Sydney Sun Cables. “A TYRANT BILL.” LABOUR’S POLITICAL LEVY. THE DEBATE ADJOURNED. LONDON, May 2. (Received May 3, at 7 p.m.) Continuing his speech, Mr Clynes said that last year’s industrial troubles were simply being made the_ occasion of the present measure, and this was only the beginning of a struggle into which the Government had chosen to enter. The Opposition was determined to repeal the measure, in whatever form it passed, because it was totally opposed to the accepted principles of British justice. All talk of intimidation of workers was wide of what had actually happened. Less intimidation existed in the pursuit of the working class of its objects than 1 lie squirearchy and the landlords practiced. There were miners still unemployed, because they participated in the general strike. Out of 300 Civil servants, half of them received below £3 weekly. It was monstrous to try to sever them from other sections of workers. The Labourites were a poor party financially, but their resources were not received from secret channels. Labour could not offer peerages in order to secure the enormous finances of the rich men’s parties. Labour’s political levy averaged Id pier month. This measure was a tyranny Bill, and could not last long, for laws could not he observed unless they were based on reason and fairplay between the classes, whereas the Bill sprang from class hostility and vindictiveness.

Mr E. A. Harvey, K.C. (Liberal) said the country waa not thinking of the general strike, but of conciliation, arbitration, and the avoidance of strikes. The Bill waa silent on the subject of the strike. The ■ country regarded it as ungenerous and unworthy of a party to crow over its adversary. The Labour noise continued till the adjournment of the debate. Mr T. Griffiths (Lab.) rose and shook his fist at the Speaker, and made a protest, which was inaudible amid the disorder. The Speaker called upon Mr Griffiths to resume his seat, causing Labour members to shout: “You lot of thieves,” “robbers,” and “blackguards.”—Argus and Sydney Sun Cables. PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.. DIVISIONS TO BE TAKEN ON THURSDAY. (British Official News.) (Press Association —By Telegraph—Copyright ) LONDON, May 2. The second reading of the Trades Union Bill began this afternoon. Three days and a-half have been set aside for the debate, and most of the prominent members of the Liberal and Labour Parties have arranged to speak before the division—which is certain to result in its passage—is taken on Thursday. The Attorney-general (Sir Douglas Hogg,) who moved the second reading, said the Government believed that the Bill was well and aptly drafted, but if the discussion revealed ambiguities the Government would be glad to co-operate in framing amendments to clear them up. It would, however, resist amendments aiming at defeating the Bill, which the Government regarded as just and necessary to vindicate the authority of the State and protect the liberties of its citizens. The Government had no objection, if a case was made out, to include in the Bill a genera] lock-out by the employers. Clause 1, he said, was framed as being declaratory, instead of being an amendment of the existing law. One of its advantages was that it ensured that if a general strike were threatened there would Be an early opportunity of obtaining a judicial decision as to whether the enterprise was legal or illegal. Clause 2 was necessary, as peaceful persuasion, permitted by the 1906 Act, was misconstrued in practice, and during last year’s stoppage the defence set up by many persons charged with intimidation was that their conduct was justified, as they were members of a strike picket. Healing with clauses affecting the political levy, the Attorney-general said he had had complaints from trade unionists alleging that they found themselves practically compelled to contribute to a levy under the present contracting cut provisions;