THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21214, 20 December 1930, Page 13

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

TRADES DISPUTE BILL,

CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION,

(British Official Wireless.) (United Press Association.)

(By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) RUGBY, December 18. (Received Dec. 19, at 5.6 p.m.) In the House of Commons the Government introduced a Bill to amend the law relating to trades disputes and trade unions. This is a measure to which a considerable 'section of Liberals, who hold the balance of voting power in the House of Commons, as well as all the Conserva tives, are believed to bs opposed. The second reading will be taken on January 22.

GENERAL EFFECT* OP BILL.

LONDON, December 18. (Rec. Dee. 19, at 5,5 p.m.) It is understood that the general effect of the Trades Disputes Bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons to amend the law relating to trades disputes and trade unions, is to restore the trade unions law to its condition prior to the 1927 Act. The new Bill, which is likely to be opposed by a section of the Liberals, as well as the Conservatives, legalises the sympathetic strike, but it does not affect the legal position of the general strike as defined in 1927. The Bill reverses the position of the political levy, which requires payments from all trade unionists.

DAILY HERALD COMMENT,

POLITICAL LEVY RESTORED,

LONDON, December 19. (.Received Dec. 20, at 0.30 a.m.) Important political moves which are designed to enable the Labour Party to retain office for a further two years, or face an earlier general election with what is considered good battle cries, were made yesterday. The Daily Herald declares: “ The new Bill completely wipes out Mr Baldwin’s Act, which was passed after the general strike in 1926. Sympathetic strikes will be legalised, and no strike can be declared illegal on account of its mere magnitude. The political levy will be restored, and the civil services will be permitted to organise. Sir Oswald Mosley told the Labourites that they would lose 100 seats if they went to the country in the immediate future, and Mr MacDonald wound up in the same strain. He seemed, like the rest, to assume that the Liberals are so frightened that they are prepared to risk anything rather than an election at present. It remains to be seen whether Sir John Simon and others share this view.”

The News Chronicle is reconciled to a still further period of Labour. It says: “ However bitterly the Liberals may criticise the Government it is infinitely preferable to a Protectionist Tory admifiistration.”