WILD DEBATE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 35, 4 May 1927, Page 13

WILD DEBATE

TRADES UNION BILL ANGRY OPPOSITION MR. JACK JONES LEAVES HOUSL Sy Cable. — Press Association.—Copyright LONDON, Monday. When the second reading of the* Trades Union Bill was moved by Right Hon. Sir Douglas Hogg, AttorneyGeneral, there were wild scenes in the House of Commons, and he was subjected to continuous Labour interruption. Sir Douglas said it was asserted that a political levy clause was unnecessary because exemption from payments was available, and on the contrary it was objected that the clause would cripple unions. Both propositions could not be true. Mr. Jones: What a brain! The mover’s next remark was drowned by Labour yells of “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 immediately. Mr. Jones: I am going now, sir; but I will be here when Hogg and his crowd have gone with him. “A HOG’S BILL” He left the House shouting: “It’s a hog’s Bill!” When Sir Douglas again arose to continue he was received with Labour shouts of “Divide!” He continued, stating that the clause dealing with civil servants was necessitated by the history or last May, when the State officials were actively engaged in fomenting rebellion against the State. Labour cries of “Rubbish! ” Continuing again, he said: “This is intolerable. The Civil Service must be free from party and political ties.” The sixth clause forbade the public authorities insisting that employees must belong to particular unions, and to the revolutionary section of the community. The Bill was necessarily abhorrent, out the opposition represented the larger and more moderate section of Labour. It was disappointing to find that this section was unwilling to join If the moderate Labourites had the moral courage to cooperate 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 and freed6m of State, and protected the working man. DELIBERATE HOSTILITY Mr. J. R. Clynes in moving the rejection of the Bill said that it 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 shame-faced criticism of some of the Government’s supporte~s. It would be the duty of the opposition when it became the Government to repeal the measure because he believed it to be a malignant 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’. c general strike. —A. and N.Z.-Sun.