TRADES DISPUTES ACT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 72, Issue 6239, 7 June 1946, Page 6

TRADES DISPUTES ACT

THREAT BY BRITISH LABOUR CREATION OF 500 NEW LORDS “If the House of Lords should obstruct the bill, for the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act, the King may be asked to appoint 500 new Labour peers to ensure tis acceptance.” This was the breath-taking statement which galvanised the audience when uttered by J. B. , Hynd, Labourite member of Parliament and Parliamentary Private Secretary to the First Lord of the’ Admiralty, at a political meeting to celebrate May Day. The suggestion is neither revolutionary nor unique, Hynd told me. The Government has a complete right to ask this of the King, who, as a constitutional monarch, accepts the advice of his Prime Minister. In 1911 Herbert Henry Asquith, head of the Liberal Government, actually invoked the right during a crisis in the House of Lords, he pointed out. When Asquith told Parliament the King had intimated he would accede to the request, there was an uproar, but the threat proved sufficient to make the House of Lords bow to the will of the House of Commons.

The House of Lords by Parliamentary law has the constitutional right to delay proposed legislation for a maximum period of two years. That is, it can obstruct any legislation except a “money bill,” because money questions are the prerogative of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the supreme body because its members are elected directly by the people, whereas membership in the House of Lords is automatic when an individual assumes a peerage.

Hynd thinks, however, the creation of a mammoth new peerage roll is a. remote contingency as the House of Lords is not really in a good strategic position to obstruct the Labour bill for a lengthy period.

“When Conservative Governments are in power, practically all legislation introduced is passed almost automatically by the House of Lords,” he said. “To-day, with Socialists in office, we have enormous opposition to our bills by the Lords. “There are more than 800 members in the Lords, of whom fewer than 40 are Labour peers; so our measures are disputed—but the political temper of the country is such that it gives backing to Socialist measures. The present dispute on the repeal of the Trades Disputes Act stems back to the critical 1926 general strike. By an Act passed since then, sympathetic strikes by trades unions were abolished by law. The Labour party feels that unions should have the right to strike in sympathy. The other, and most important clause in the Act that the Socialists want repealed, is explained by Hynd. “Simply put, we want to strike off the shackles put on political funds of trades unions. Before the Act was passed, it was the custom of trades unions to lay aside a small portion of a member’s subscription to the Labour party fund. This was generally accepted by union members. Those who objected had to do so in writing. That system worked fine as the few objectors were usually only too happy to register their objections. In passing the Act, the Government then in power used a subtle knowledge of psychology. It demanded that in the future those members wishing to give their party subscriptions to political funds should record their desire in writing—objectors need not.

“It is a well known fact that most people are either too busy or hate to sign on the dotted line to register separate payment of a tiny sum. So in effect the Labour party funds lost large sums. We want to revert to objectors registering objection.”