LONG DEBATE ENDS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 38, 7 May 1927, Page 13

LONG DEBATE ENDS

trades unions bill PASSES second reading 250 AMENDMENTS ccl i e —Press Association.— Copyright LONDON, Thursday. The Trades Unions Bill debate ■ fhr House of Commons is finished and the Bill passed the second reading after a Labour lotion for its rejection was debated by 386 to 171 votes. Notices of amendments to be moved in the committee stage of the Bill were lod ged after the division. The Liberal and Labour members were responsible for 250 amendments.

Mr D Lloyd George disputed the •iadom Of introducing such a chalking provocative bill at the present p Doubtless the trades unions law VSJed amendment and clarification, ’ die bill only muddled old obscuriZ* and created a new one. Almost .very 9trike in any K^ ry be held to come under the bill, it was the most unwise step possible to introduce the measure when they were struggling hard to recover their trade, which was only possible by of whole-hearted co-operation hi tween employers and their workmen. The bill went far beyond Sir Douglas Hock’s propositions. It used the imnerfections of the trades unions law order to create an injustice. The bill did not deal with real needs. There was no real demand for it, even from the employers. They might imnound trades unions’ or political funds, but it would not make the workers work more efficiently. This depended on the maintenance of goodwill. HELPING TORYISM Some of the largest captains of industry were opposed to the hill root and branch as being prejudicial to industrial peace, the speaker declared, vet the Government, forgetting the need for trade recovery, introduced the bill purely for the recovery of Toryism. , Mr. J. Wheatley, Labour member for Shettleston, Glasgow, said: “In response to Mr. Baldwin’s appeal for the creation of an atmosphere in which we might secure industrial peace by negotiations the Labour members responded to the extent of facing humiliation. Their reward is this bill. “The bill is not designed to secure peace by negotiation, but by police, law courts and prisons. It is one of the most shameful actions of a British statesman.”

Mr. E. Hilton Young, Conservative member for Norwich, said he welcomed the bill as clarifying the law as to general strikes and enlarging workers’ liberty. Mr. J. B. Clynes, Labour member for Platting, Manchester, asked the Prime Minister to allot more time to the debate. It was pointed out that over 500 members are in constant attendance and only 34, including 15 Labour members, have taken part in the debate.

Mr. Baldwin replied that he had tried to meet the Labour members’ wishes by the allocation of four days to the second reading debate. While there was evidence that many members wished to speak there was no evidence that an equal number desired to listen.

Mr. Clynes made a further request for an extension of the time allotted for the committee stage.

Mr. Baldwin pointed out that the Government had postponed the second reading debate until after Easter at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and that members had had a month in which to prepare amendments. HOPES OF PEACE DESTROYED Mr. J. H. Thomas, Labour member for Derby, said that the bill destroyed all hopes of industrial peace. Millions of decent trades unionists resented it, chiefly because they believed It was a mean miserable attempt by the Government to injure their opponents —and this by a minority Government elected by a fraudulent letter. “If you believe that the bill will prevent men striking you are deceiving yourselves,” said Mr. Thomas. “ The country will not thank you for it. I •®ly wish you had courage to test it. You have abused your majority and struck a blow at industrial peace. We will carry the fight into the country ind win.”

The Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Insidp, in replying to the debate, was bombarded with interjections when he reiterated that the bill would improve workers’ conditions. In replying to Mr. Snowden’s reference to the impossibility of imprisoning five million strikers he said: “Does not Mr. bnowden know that the law is not administered by the police, but by the law-abiding character of the race.” ‘-ir Thomas added that the fundamental principle of the bill was the question whether the interests of rades unionists, or of the whole counJ. y< should prevail. If there were am- ' Kill ties in the wording of the bill uey could be corrected in committee. CLOSURE CARRIED raf ir oUglas Hogg moved the appli°t the closure, which was carhedby 388 to 168 votes. ~r- Clynes’s amendments and the moti°n for the rejection of the bill I u!l eate ' 3 by 356 to 171 votes, after the motion for the second readingyvas agreed to. Conservatives and Labour voted strictly on party lines. in„ Liberals were divided, seven votwitH tbe Conservatives and 19 siml Labour Party. Sir John l nt? (Liberal) abstained from vot-

b P * ° t3ces of shoals of amendments to thA Kn7 ed in the committee stage of r-iA h! I ere lodged immediately after mpmK« Sion ‘ Liberals and Labour °ji> a rs were responsible for nearly will L nen(lment s- The Labour Party and iu° ve to omit each clause in turn on whi I??w ively to Postpone the dates operative the proposals aro to become notiM 8 !.? Conservatives have given outs o°* amer *dments to bring lockonerat; ' v ’ eU as strikes, within the operation of the bill—A. and N.Z.-Sun.