BRITISH LABOUR FIGHTS ON

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 35, 4 May 1927, Page 9

BRITISH LABOUR FIGHTS ON

TRADE UNION BILL By Cable.—Press Association. —Copyright Reed 1 p.m. RUGBY, Tuesday. Before the House of Commons resumed its debate on the Trade Unions Bill to-day, the Parliamentary Labour Party met and decided to continue its strongest opposition to the Bill during its remaining stages. The newspapers anticipated that the obstructionist tactics adopted yesterday would be intensified in the early part of to-day’s session, which, however, passed without disturbance, and apart from occasional interruptions, Mr. G. A. Spencer, member for Nottinghamshire, the miners’ leader, who was recently expelled from the Miners’ Federation, was able to continue his speech in general support of the Bill, particularly its proposals regarding intimidation, while not agreeing entirely with the Bill’s proposals for contracting out of the levy for political purposes. He criticised the use of trade union general funds for pofitical purposes. Mr. Arthur Henderson (Labour) condemned the Bill as an invasion of the established rights and legal powers of trades unions. INVASION OF RIGHTS The history of trade unionism in relation to Parliament had been one of widening recognition and of increasing its power and influence under the sanction of the law. The Bill aimed at reversing the process of a hundred years. In seeking to make the general strike illegal the Government went beyond the necessities of the case. The right to strike was preserved, but was modified to become worse than a direct challenge of that right. The Bill must result in rendering unions less effetcive than in the past for bargaining purposes. It made almost every sympathetic strike liable to be held illegal, whether or not it took place with a breach of contract or without notice. CRIPPLED UNIONS Crippled unions struck a heavy blow at them by the new power of permitting the Attorney-General to interfere in the affairs of a union through the decisions of a court. The issues raised in the Bill had never been before the public at a general election, and he urged that it was an abuse of the Parliament and the Government to propose a serious reversal of law without authority from the people. If grievances existed the question should have been the subject of a full and searching inqury. The Rt. Hon. Sir Laming Worthing-ton-Evans (Conservative) replying for the Government, quoted Justice Estbury's judgment in support of the assertion that the clause was one merely declaratory of the existing law' that a general strike was illegal. EXISTING LAW If, as Sir Henry Slesser, AttorneyGeneral in the Labour Govei-nmem had said, this was a new law, the necessity had increased for legislation making the general strike illegal. It. was in the interests of every trade unionist to have uncertainties removed.

Continuing his speech amid interruption, he pointed out that the Bill did not limit the right to strike, or have a sympathetic strike unless it was designed to coerce the Government or community. Replying to the suggestion that the Bill was an act of class hostility, he . said it s intention was to protect a general strike the working classes, who were the chief sufferers. The King has