§ 27. Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Home Secretary's attention has been called to the case of John Fitzgibbons, who was fined 40s. at the Thames Police-Court for shouting at blacklegs, urging them to come out on strike; and whether he will review this and other sentences passed on the same occasion for similar offences?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have obtained a report of the facts proved at the hearing of the charges against this man and two others concerned in preventing certain vanmen from working, and find no reason for advising any interference with the sentence. His fine has been paid.
§ 28. Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the police attack upon people who stood upon the footpath between Canning Town station and the iron bridge, Barking Road, on Thursday morning last; if he is aware that a reporter of the "Star" newspaper, who was witness to a man being chased across the road, was pushed and struck by the police, and that the man moved off to the pavement and approached a sergeant, when two other constables rushed at him, seized him by the scruff of the neck and, with unnecessary force, hurried him off down a side turning; whether he is aware that on Wednesday, 29th May, at the corner of Beckton Road, the police on horseback rushed into the crowd and attacked men, women, and children, with the result that. two children and an old man and woman were injured; and if he is prepared to hold an inquiry into the matter?
283 Before my question is answered, I wish to point out that the way it reads makes it represent that the witness was assaulted. I wish to make it clear that he was only witness of an assault.
§ Mr. McKENNAInquiry is being made into the circumstances referred to by my hon Friend. It is quite impossible to get the Report to-day. I will make further inquiry about the matter.
29. Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the circumstances in which on the 28th May the Home Secretary received a deputation from the strike committee of the transport workers; if at that meeting he gave any undertaking to the men that the military would not be employed to protect the carriage of merchandise from the docks into London; and whether, in view of the allegations made by the men as to the conduct of the police in connection with the strike, he will issue a verbatim report of what took place at the interview?
§ Mr. McKENNAI received the deputation at their own request. Their object was to make certain complaints against the police, and to offer their own co-operation in securing the delivery of the food supplies. I gave no undertaking of any sort with regard to the employment of the military, but I explained that no soldiers had been employed, and I expressed the hope—which I am sure this House shares—that order would be maintained without the necessity for their employment. The interview was private.
Mr. FRED HALLWas a shorthand note taken of the interview, and, if so, can a copy of it be obtained by any Member of the House?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir.
30. Mr. FRED HALLasked how many additional police have had to be employed for the protection of life and property endangered by the action of the transport workers on strike in endeavouring forcibly to prevent the removal of goods and merchandise from the London Docks, and how the cost thereby incurred will be borne?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe services of 791 men of the Reserve of Metropolitan Police pensioners have been utilised as additional constables. The cost will be borne by the Metropolitan Police Fund.
31. Mr. FRED HALLasked whether, in reply to requests for protection in connection with the transport strike, the protection of the Metropolitan Police was promised so far as the resources at their disposal permitted; whether these resources were in all cases sufficient to comply with requests for protection; and, if not, what steps were taken to supplement the police forces available?
§ Mr. McKENNASo far as the resources of the police permitted, they have given protection against risk of disorder or intimidation, but it is only in the case of the food supply that extensive precautionary measures have been taken. The number of police available for this duty has been increased by stopping leave, by drawing police from quiet districts to those where disturbance was feared, and by recalling a large number of police pensioners to the ranks.
Mr. FRED HALLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reluctance on his part to get the military to assist the police was in any way in consequence of information received for and on behalf of the candidate for North-West Norfolk?
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not understand the point of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman can put it down on the Paper.
§ Mr. HARRY LAWSONMay I ask whether the Metropolitan Police will have consideration for leave to make up for the extra duty they have done, and also for certain extra allowances on account of the additional work of which he has spoken?
§ Mr. McKENNAI believe that is the general practice.
34. Mr. FRED HALLasked whether the Home Secretary has received a copy of a resolution passed by the executive committee of the London Corn Trade Association, asking the Government to let it be known during the present dock strike that protection would be given to all those desiring to work; and, if so, whether he has taken steps with a view to an official announcement of the Government's willingness to furnish such protection, in view of the publicity given to the assurances which he gave to the strikers' leaders on certain points?
§ Mr. McKENNAI received the resolution referred to. No formal declaration of the intention of the Government appeared to me to be called for. The intention of the Government to maintain order and protect the food supply was amply shown by the steps which have been taken.
35. Mr. FREDHALL asked whether the police protection given to merchants and traders during the transport strike extended to all classes of goods, or whether it was limited to food and perishables or in any other manner?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe police have been ready to act wherever they were called on to suppress disturbance or intimidation, but it is only in connection with the food supply that they have arranged extensive precautionary measures.
§ Mr. BARNESHas not the hon. Gentleman exhausted the number of questions allowed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe number of questions permitted to an hon. Member is eight.
36. Mr. FRED HALLasked whether the facilities in the shape of permits given by the disputes committee of the National Transport Workers' Federation in the dock strike for the conveyance of goods in certain circumstances, have been utilised in any way in connection with the Post Office or any other Department of the Government service; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown have advised on the question of the legality of the issue of such permits on the part of the Federation in the conditions obtaining?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have communicated with the Post Office, and find that no permits have been used, and I know of no Department that has used them. I have not consulted the Law Officers.
§ 37. Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Office entered into any arrangement or bargain with either party as regards measures of repression or protection during the strike?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir.
§ 38. Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Secretary moved the Port Authority of London to refuse the "Lady Jocelyn" leave to enter the Albert Dock; and, if the answer be in the affirmative, whether such action was taken in consequence of representations made by any and, if so, by what persons?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have from the first strongly deprecated the bringing of the "Lady Jocelyn" into the docks as a step likely to cause irritation and to increase the difficulties of the police. I was led to take this view after consultation with my advisers, and not in consequence of any representations made to me.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that it rather impairs his claim to a position of perfect impartiality between the two parties to the strike?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir; the admission of the "Lady Jocelyn" would undoubtedly greatly aggravate the present state of feeling, and I conceive it to be my duty not to allow anything to be done which would unnecessarily provoke strong feeling.
§ Sir J. D. REESCan the right hon. Gentleman consider the claim of any portion of the community to exercise their legal rights unnecessary, or whether it is not his duty to support any such effort on their part?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no power to stop the "Lady Jocelyn" from coming into dock if it chooses to exercise its legal right to come into dock, but the owners of the "Lady Jocelyn" have no necessary claim on the police of London to withdraw their forces from other places where they may be required to protect the "Lady Jocelyn," which is advised not to come into dock.
§ Sir J. D. REESIn that case, may I ask whether the claim for protection is a geographical matter, and depends on the distribution for the moment of the police?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe claim for protection in every case must depend upon the number of police available for the purpose. It would be impossible to give precautionary protection in the case of every demand made upon them; but it is desirable in all disputes of this kind that efforts should be made on both sides to avoid all unnecessary causes of friction.
§ Mr. BOYTONWhat was the nature of the cargo on the "Lady Jocelyn"?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe cargo was one of men.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs it not the fact that the "Lady Jocelyn" was amply protected by a volunteer police force?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have no knowledge whatever of a volunteer police force.
§ 40. Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Home Secretary was a party to the recent issue of permits by officials of the Transport Workers' Federation to the Thames Steamboat Company and other services?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir.
§ Sir J. D. REESDoes not the right hon. Gentleman remember the promotion of an agitation against the payment of rates under the Education Act, for which his right hon. colleague beside him was chiefly responsible?
§ Mr. McKENNAI do not know whether my right hon. Friend was then at the Home Office.
§ 43. Mr. INGLEBYasked whether, under the existing law, non-union men have the same right to work as union men; and, if so, why protection is not given to them when leaving and returning to their homes?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second, that where protection is necessary it is given so far as practicable. It is obviously impossible to have a constable continuously in attendance on every workman.
§ Mr. INGLEBYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that only yesterday men had to leave the unloading of a ship in the Surrey Commercial Dock, and give notice to their employers to that effect, because of the threats to which they were subjected that their homes would be attacked if they continued to work, and that they would not run that risk on account of their wives and families; and whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give them protection?
§ Mr. McKENNAI dealt with that particular case in the reply which I have given to the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand that he alleges that in any cases homes were attacked.
§ 44. Mr. INGLEBYasked the Home Secretary whether Sir Edward Clarke's report on the recent strike of transport workers was submitted in a draft form for approval by the Board of Trade before he signed it; and what alterations, if any, were made in his original draft report before it was signed by him?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.
§ 62. Mr. INGLEBYasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this Session with the object of prohibiting the employment of non-union labour or which would have the effect of making it impossible or difficult for non-union men to obtain work at the Port of London?
§ Mr. BUXTONNo, Sir.
§ Mr. INGLEBYIf this federation scheme is carried out, would not that prevent non-union men from obtaining work?
§ Mr. BUXTONNo, Sir.