§ Sir KINGSLEY WOODI desire now to raise another matter, which I think the House will regard as urgent, namely, the present condition of London owing to the lightning strike which has developed during the last few hours. This is the third time within the last six months on which London has been subjected to a strike of this character. There was the railway strike in January, there was the tram way men and omnibus men's strike in March, and to-day we have practically the stoppage of the underground service. This is a particularly cruel strike begun at a most inconvenient time, to the great detriment of the mass of the workers of London. I suppose that this strike will not particularly affect Members of this House or Ministers going away, quite properly, for a little vacation, but, quite apart from the question of financial loss and dislocation of industry, it will affect the holiday of the very poorest people in London, and it- is all the more reprehensible because, as I understand, according to the statement of the Minister of Labour yesterday, it is termed a nonofficial strike. London is being held up at present by eight men who apparently have no responsibility to anybody. It is no consolation to the people of London to tell them that this is a non-official strike. It is, perhaps, rather difficult to define what an unofficial strike may be, but I put it to the Minister of Labour that, if this is an unofficial strike without authority, as I understand under Communist direction, then we have a new and a grave danger to the community which will certainly have to be faced and dealt with immediately. This country cannot allow any small body of men to hold up the nation in that fashion and to bring damage and disaster to the community and especially to the workers. The great body of these men, a very large number of whom, I am afraid, have been led away, may have a case, and this House would not be unsympathetic towards any case of any body of workers which may be put forward, but I think that everyone will agree that no case, however good it may be, is furthered by conduct 1676 of this kind. I observe that yesterday it was stated in the Labour Press service, which the right hon. Gentleman will understand better than I do, that.
This strike has been fomented by an unofficial committee dominated by Communist influences, and its mischievous nature can be inferred from the fact that the National Union of Railwaymen's Executive, whose members are chiefly involved, had already undertaken to promote a national all grades' movement, including the shop-men, before the local trouble began.That, apparently, is the explanation coining from the official Press service of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. Undoubtedly, these men have seized upon the London Electric Railways and they have singled them out because they can be more easily attacked and because, I suppose, they think that their demands can be more easily extorted. There is no pretence that the conditions on the London Electric Railways are different from the conditions on any other railway in the country, and it is very difficult indeed to give any reason except the one that I have indicated why this particular railway, which is used so much by the working-class people of London, and which, were it not for the strike, would be used very extensively by them during the holidays in going to places like Kew and Richmond, that this railway can be more readily attacked. It is only fair, however, to say that the fact that this strike is being engineered by the Communists is repudiated by one of the joint secretaries of the Strike Committee because I see that Mr. Leonard Akehurst stated last night that he repudiated that the strike is Communistic in its origin.
All the members of the committee"—he said—are loyal members of the National Union of Railwaymen, whose chief desire it is to see that that organisation functions in the interests of its members.He says:I myself am a fitter, and work at the bench in the London Electric Company's workshop, and anyone who wants to know anything about my personal character or conduct as a citizen should apply to my employers.At any rate, that is the statement of Mr. Akehurst as far as his conduct of the strike is concerned. I must call the attention of the House and of the Minister of Labour to the fact that apparently this 1677 strike is by no means confined to London, because I see that in a. report in a paper to-day, which I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will not dispute, it says:On the Great Western Railway, which is involved in the strike, the position is also developing seriously, and it was stated that if a settlement were not arrived at quickly the staff of the Severn Tunnel would take sympathetic action. This would mean that the tunnel would be flooded. The position at some of the South Wales centres may be summed up in the following table of shopmen already known to be out yesterday:
Cardiff 2,800(98 per cent.) Swansea 400 Meath 400 Barry 400 Port Talbot 100 At Penarth and Dowlais all are out; at Treherbert 55 per cent., with expectations of all being out by midnight. The shopmen at Newport have decided to take no unofficial action. The position at Cardiff Docks is developing seriously, for already the machinery necessary for the import and export trade of the port is becoming affected"—and so on, giving a long description of the particular position in various other parts of the country, and showing, I venture to say, that the position is a most serious one and deserving not only the consideration of Pm Government but very prompt action indeed. I want to ask the Minister of Labour some questions before we leave for our holiday, if we have to do so. I was hoping that a demand would be made as on a previous occasion by hon. Members opposite that Parliament should not adjourn in the midst of trouble and disaster of this kind, and yet we find the Motion for the Adjournment of the House being made by the Lord Privy Seal. These are the questions which I want to put to the Minister of Labour: Will he state what the Government regard as their exact responsibility in connection with the maintenance of the essential public services of the nation?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw)The hon. Member is asking me a question. What does he mean exactly by "essential public services"?
§ Sir K. WOODI will reply in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because a little time ago, when another strike was in existence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote what he thought 1678 were the responsibilities of the Government. The article is entitled:
Labour Government quickly settles 'bus and tram strike. (By Philip Snowden, M.P.)It is dated, London, 9th April,Industrial troubles are causing the Labour Government a good deal of embarrassment. The strike of the London 'bus and tramway men threatened to develop into a stoppage of all the services on which the vast population of London have to depend for transport. Faced by such a possibility as this the Government had no option but to take immediate steps either to bring the strike to an end, if that were possible, or to organise some kind of emergency service. It was a disagreeable situation for a Labour Government, but one which had to be faced. The Government had to avoid even the appearance of strike-breaking, but they had an obligation to maintain essential services on which the livelihood of the community depends.When the right hon. Gentleman asks me what I mean by the question that I have addressed to him, I say that I mean exactly the same as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his own Government. I will only give one concluding quotation from the article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it largely bears out, the reference that I have made to the suffering and hardship which is being inflicted on the community by wanton and desperate acts of this kind. In the following paragraph, he says:Since we assumed office a great deal of our tune has been occupied in dealing with industrial disputes, much to the detriment of the programme of social legislation that we want to carry out.That is in the May day issue of the "New Leader" of 26th April, 1924. I renew the question to the Minister of Labour as to what steps—within the meaning of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he is going to take to maintain the services of the community at this time? I hope he will not reply in the rather foolish terms in which he replied in the House yesterday, namely, that the Government did not consider that they hail any responsibility in this matter until they were able to introduce a Measure of nationalisation.
§ Mr. SHAWI think the House requires that the truth should be known. If the hon. Member will kindly read the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see exactly what I said.
§ Sir K. WOODI will read the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
In answer to the first question as to what steps the Government are taking to maintain the services, as the railways are not nationalised, obviously it has scarcely become our business yet to maintain those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1924; col. 1467, Vol. 174.]
§ Sir K. WOODI think it will be accepted by every Member of the House, except by the right hon. Gentleman, that my statement was a perfectly fair interpretation of his answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take steps to protect the men who desire to work?—I observe in one of the leading journals this morning 'that it is already being said that the men who desire to work and to obey the orders of their trade unions are to he declared blacklegs. Does the Minister associate himself with that position, or will he say plainly and directly to the House that men who are 'willing to obey the orders of their trade unions, and who loyally do their best to maintain the services of the country, will be given ample protection. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, not now, but later, will consider the legal position as it affects these men who have fomented this trouble, and struck this blow at the community. [Laughter.] Is it not a blow? Do hon. Members laugh at it? I refer the right hon. Gentleman to two Acts of Parliament, one passed in 1875 and the other it 1919. It is provided in the Act of 1875 that where a person employed by a municipal authority, or by any company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or who has other-wised assumed the duty of supplying gas or water—the 1919 Act extended it to electricity supplies—wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service, knowing that by doing so they will probably deprive the public wholly, or to a great extent, of that supply, that person shall, on conviction, be liable to a penalty laid down in the Act. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is going to take any steps in that direction?
My final question is, as we have to adjourn to-day, will the Minister undertake that if this condition of affairs develops—as, unfortunately, it seems it may—that he will vigilantly watch and safeguard the interest of the community 1680 while the House is not sitting? I say that all the more because I observe—I make no complaint of it, nor do I give any secondary meaning to my words—that Mr. Bramley, the Secretary of the Trade Union Congress, Mr. Cramp, the Industrial Secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen, and Mr. Bromley, of another important organisation, are all at Vienna at' ending an international congress. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in conjunction with the Prime, Minister, if matters develop further, undertake to call the House together at short notice should it be necessary to do so, in order to deal with a serious situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite do not think that this is a matter which amuses London. Anyone who has witnessed the scenes this morning and the suffering imposed upon people, especially upon women endeavouring to get to business, will realise what a cruel and wanton blow at the community this is. I call upon the Minister to tell us how he is fulfilling the great responsibility which he bears at the present moment in connection with his office, and to give us a more satisfactory reply than that which he gave yesterday.
§ Mr. B. SMITHI think it regrettable that hon. Members opposite should couch their interrogations to the Minister in the language which has been used In the long run such language will only engender more bitterness, and may probably extend the dispute. As a matter of fact, while the dispute is unofficial, and has been definitely stated to be unofficial, the g[...]avamen of the case arises from the policy adopted by the friends of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was they, through their organisations, who brought about the very wide disparities in wages between men in the same industry which have led to this trouble. Efforts have been made for years to bring wages into proper alignment in particular industries, and behind all this trouble lies the policy of widening the differences which exist between man and man in a given industry. That policy is reflected in actions such as the present action. No one justifies it; it is an unofficial strike and it must inevitably hit the community; but our Friends opposite are anxious that this Government should do what they always failed to do themselves when in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I speak from experience, because I led 1681 one or two strikes during the War in London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] I am not ashamed of it. I fought with the same weapons as those with which you fought me. [An HON. MEMBER: "You should have been at the front."] Some of those Gentlemen would have had their grandmothers at the front sooner than go themselves. You thought more of money making than of that.
§ Captain Viscount CURZONSome of them have been there.
§ Mr. SMITHAnd some of them have not. The Coalition Government never tackled these problems in the way in which it is suggested this Government should tackle them. It is a case of being in opposition, and of trying to focus attention on their professed sympathy with the public—who do not need them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That fact is reflected in the return of more Members to this House of a different political faith. If hon. Members opposite will keep off this discussion—though I know they will not, and cannot do so—and if they allow the machinery established to bring about peace to operate, instead of inflaming passions, extending the strike, and embarrassing the men's leaders, this strike would come to an end far sooner than it otherwise would.
§ Viscount CURZONThe speech to which we have just listened is illuminating. I thought hon. Members opposite posed as the representatives of the workers. I should like the hon. Member to come to my constituency—to Clapham Junction—and try to get into a train there. He would find that this was no laughing matter and no subject for jesting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] You have all been laughing, every one of you. You think it is a laughing matter; we do not. The hon. Member suggests that we bring this forward as a political issue. It is nothing of the sort. We are here to represent the great mass of our constituents, and it is they who suffer in these disputes. I do not take any side in this dispute whatever. All that I desire to do is to ask the Minister of Labour what exactly is going to be the attitude of the Government in this dispute. We heard yesterday a series of questions and answers on the subject, and the answer given by the Minister of Labour did not convince anybody. It did not give any guide to anybody as to what the attitude 1682 of the Government would be on this question, and the question to which I want a clear and specific answer is this: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry out the ordinary functions of government, which merely consist, as I see them, not in taking sides in this dispute, but in doing what they can to minimise its sufferings and to minimise its extension wherever they see the chance, and, at any rate, to make it certain that anybody who desires to work will have full and ample protection, not only while he is at work, but—and this is a new phase in industrial disputes—at home, because we have heard now of the picketing of the homes of these men when they go home. If has even been brought back on their kiddies going to school, as the right hon. Gentleman knows well enough.
These sort of things are repudiated, I fancy, by all the more responsible elements in trade unionism, and I do not believe that hon. Members representing the great trade unions of this country countenance that sort of thing for a minute. I say that this is a strike de signed and aimed at London, for the third time, as has been pointed out, this year, holding up the people of this great city to ransom. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and to hon. Members opposite, that no strike can possibly succeed in this country unless it gets public sympathy. Look at the state of affairs on our railways and on our transport services to-day, and they may even become worse. Why should all this intolerable suffering, hardship, and inconvenience be inflicted on the people of this country at the whim of a few men, who merely desire to destroy their trade unions, to repudiate any bargains which the unions may have entered into, and to do irreparable damage whenever they see a chance? They have gone to Lots Road Station, Chelsea, because they know that if they can hold it up, they practically bring to a standstill all the tube railways, most of the tramways, and a great deal else of the public transport undertakings of London. They can deal an immense blow at the community, and, therefore, they go there. That is the Communist doctrine; it is part of the policy of the Communists to call out men in essential industries, key men, wherever they can.
I want to hear from the Government whether they are going to take a firm 1683 stand in this matter. I want to know whether they are in earnest, because I am not convinced that they are. If they are, let them tell the House so, but it is a singular fact that this afternoon, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) started to raise this matter as a question of urgency and importance, all that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did was to give a very expansive yawn, which did not impress me as being a moral gesture. Further, the Amalgamated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen have threatened the railway companies with calling out their men if the companies do not agree to meet certain demands, and if they do that they will, as I understand it, commit a definite breach of the Railways Act of 1921. I only want to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether we are in any danger of a lightning strike on the railways, as well as on the tube railways of London. think the country has a right to know, and also it has a right to know what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude will be in the matter. It is all very well to have these disputes in industry, and to accuse hon. Members on this side of political motives. I have no political motives. I do not want to take any side in this dispute whatever. I have explained my attitude, and I want a definite and clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman which will convince me that he is in earnest, and that the Government are in earnest, and that they mean to give full and ample protection to anybody who wishes to work.
§ Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEIf we were not on the eve of an adjournment, I should have hesitated to raise the point which I propose to raise, and which is rather analogous to the point raised in the last portion of the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), and that is the question of another strike which may arise in the very near future on the same lines as the one now in action. I refer to the shopmen on the railways, who, I understand, have been put on short time, and whose wages have consequently been reduced to a figure of which I do not think even the most reactionary Member opposite would approve. The House will recollect that at the time when Sir Montague Barlow was outlining his 1684 schemes for employment last year, there came into those schemes a large expenditure of money for the railway companies on repairs and maintenance of the railways, and it is largely men who are bricklayers, carpenters, and joiners who are affected by the curtailing a those schemes. I understand that representations have been made to the companies concerned, and they have said that, owing to the fact that the companies have been working at a very grave loss, they feel compelled to put these shopmen on short time. At the present moment, when there is a great deal of agitation in the transport systems of the country, and when we have this strike going on, and another strike threatened, it would be the greatest pity' in the world if the Minister did not make representations of some sort to the railway companies, and ask them if they cannot reconsider their decision to put these men on short time.
They are, as the Minister will know, skilled workmen, but they have not the guaranteed week which was offered to other members of the National Union of Railwaymen, and in consequence they are liable to short time and the consequent reduction of wages, which reduces their actual receipts below a living standard. The result of this will very likely be that during the Recess we may have a similar unofficial strike to the one now in progress, and I, personally, so far as my information goes, can have nothing but sympathy for a strike of that nature. It will not hold up the community in any way. It will be simply a strike of the men engaged on repair and maintenance work, and at the moment when these men's minds are, to a certain extent, inflamed, not only by their own wrongs, but by the spectacle of unofficial strikes in other parts of the country, it would be the greatest calamity if the Minister could not make strong representations to the railway companies, who, I have no doubt, would pay the greatest attention to them. These particular men—and I wish the Secretary of State for the Colonies were here—are rather the last child, so to speak, of the family in the National Union of Railwaymen, and they do not always, perhaps, get the attention from their own union that they would like. They are rather apt to be left out in the cold. They are the most deserving class of workers, skilled men 1685 doing very skilled work, and very ill-paid at that. In my view, at any rate, it would he the gravest calamity at the present moment if they were driven to an unofficial strike such as is taking place. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance to the House that he will take their case into consideration.
Sir W. LANE MITCHELLI do not often intervene, but it appears to me that the House of Commons could do something to help the community in the present trouble. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which section of it"] The community that is suffering by not being able to get to work now. I do not want to enter into the dispute at all. What. I am concerned about is that people in my constituency, and in that of every London Member, cannot get to work, and they ask what the Government are going to do to remedy that state of things. The Colonial Secretary published a book, and tried to get what he called the black-coated workers on the side of his party. He said, "When Labour rules, there will be no strikes." Labour has been in power for the last six months, and this is the third time that London has been held up, and people have not been able to get to their work. The opinion is gaining in London that the present Government cannot be trusted in any dispute of this kind. They say that trade unionists have put the Government into office, that trade unionists find the party funds, and that, therefore, trade unionists cannot be touched, and that the ordinary public must just lump it. I think it is time that a protest was made, and that the Government should try to do something to enable the public to get to their work. I hope we shall get a little more from the Minister of Labour than we have got so far. He regards it as a huge joke, and broadly grins, not realising the suffering which the public ought not to be made to endure. I hope the Government will be able to tell us something definite as to how they are going to handle this strike, and finish it.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SULLIVANI have a great amount of sympathy with the people who suffer during a strike, and I can assure the House, as a trade union official, that we have no sympathy with strikes of this kind. I would like to believe that Members on the other side of the House share 1686 that view. I was extremely pleased to hear the claim for impartiality voiced by the Noble Lord apposite, and, I think, the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) took much the same line. We on these benches know how impartial and how friendly disposed they are to working people in a difficulty. There are two kinds of strikes There is a strike that hits the community, and then 'Members opposite become very interested in that particular strike. There is another strike, such as that at which an hon. Member on this side has hinted, that does not hit the community, and nobody cares 3.0 P.M. then whether it is ended or not. We people do not believe in strikes. We think there is a better method of settling our disputes. I am convinced that a strike never settles anything, but when we give that opinion, we have a great amount of sympathy with the people under certain conditions. This House, time and again, has remained silent when employers are not giving adequate wages. Hon. Members opposite then make no protest, and if any hon. Member raises the question in this House, they protest it is not oar business, and the working people are driven back to a position in which it is almost impossible to exist. I represent one of the sweated trades, one of the trades on which the wealth of this great Empire principally rests, namely, that of mining. We have come here times without number, and told of the miserable wages for which our men were working, and the great difficulty their wives and children had to make ends meet. We get no sympathy at all, and the men are forced back on the old barbarous remedy of a strike. Hon. Members on the opposite side then will not raise a little finger until the community begins to suffer. I think there is a mass of public opinion in this country—and must say I think it is on the other side, too —that wishes well to the country and the people of the country, but we have extremists, not only in the ranks of the workers, but over there, who are simply doing everything possible to bring about trouble, and are ceaselessly making attacks on working people. Supposing it was a body of employers trying to keep the food off the London market, would there be any protest from the other side? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and "No."] I have never heard either the hon. Members who spoke first make any protest of that 1687 kind. If a Combine is able to do that, you say it is good business, but if a body of working people try to improve their position, it is a, different matter. After all, the wages quoted here look much higher than we have in the mining districts. I admit that. But against that, you have the cost of living in London.
I do not know, what hon. Members opposite want. I wonder if they want to mobilise the Army. I am quite sure the Minister of Labour has done as much in this dispute as any previous Minister of Labour has ever done, and, by his methods, he has been able to shorten the duration of several strikes. It takes two people to make a strike, and working people do not risk their everything unless they have a very good reason. Speeches such as we have heard to-day will do ate immense amount of harm, and I am talking as an official. We do not approve of strikes of this kind. We would much rather the matter was discussed thoroughly, and then, if you like, let us strike. As to the suggestion that troops should be employed, I do not remember any Government mobilising the troops during a strike, except, perhaps, during the mining strike, when something was done to force the miners back to their work. If you say you want that, you may cause untold harm, and I hope the Minister of Labour will go on considering the wellbeing of the general community, and even the men affected, and try to bring about an end to this trouble.
Mr. SANDEMANIn every strike that has happened of recent times we have heard from the other side something about the question of engendering bitterness. This House is the place, I suggest, where our grievances ought to be aired with a view to trying to get a settlement of them; that we should put our heads together in a question of national importance like this, and we should endeavour to keep out bitterness. What do we notice about these strikes? Every one of them has been in the trades that are getting nearest nationalisation, and which now go under the name of the sheltered trades. They are getting wages, very large compared with the engineer who has had a five years' apprenticeship to undergo. Is that fair? Why is it? They are getting these wages because they are in the sheltered trades, because they are 1688 either municipally employed or employed by some big corporation.
The feeling is going against these petty strikes. They are getting people annoyed, and absolutely getting the country against any question of nationalisation, because the country is sick of this sort of thing. I have had a good deal to do with strikes in a quiet sort of way, and what I always noticed about them was that they were begun by the younger and irresponsible people; never by the old people—by those responsible who had a wife and children to bring up. The strikes were started, and supported, probably by girls and boys who stopped the whole place, and then went on to the next one whistling, and saying they had struck and were out for bigger wages, and so on. The new method is that we are getting in the Communist element. I am going to talk straight to the hon. Gentleman opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!] They have got to separate themselves out, the sheep from the goats. There is no question about that. I have had to do with trade union leaders, and you know that when they said a thing you could depend upon it. The leaders will have to get the trade unions under their command, for the country is not going to be moved about by a lot of young fellows who say: "We are going to have an unofficial strike." That, sort of thing is no good either for the trade unions, the country, or the employers. We are ail against that sort of thing, and if it is allowed to go on the whole country will be saying, as sure as night follows day, that the Labour party wish to have unemployment and unrest, because that is the stuff they live on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. oh!"] It is perfectly true. Hon. Members opposite know it is true. They are not laughing for mirth, but are laughing because they are rather sorry for themselves.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is usual for speeches in this House to be addressed to the Chair.
Mr. SANDEMANI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but lion. Members on the opposite side know that what I was saying was simply to cover up the matter and to be somewhat soothing to their hearts. I have said what the result of all this will he. The result will be that there is growing up a feeling all over the 1689 country that Labour does not trust its representatives quite as much as they did a short while ago: for there is all the more trouble now. I advise them, Mr. Speaker, to put their house in order, to get separated out, the sheep from the goats, to keep a clean name so that they may have a clean record.
§ Mr. NAYLORI shall not detain the. House very long. I am not at all sure into which category, sheep or goats, I personally would be put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But I would remind him that the trade union movement is not the only movement that can be divided in that way. I see 'no reason why the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) should not seek information upon a question which is undoubtedly one of great public interest What I do complain of is that the hon. Member should expect the Minister of Labour, by the mere waving of a wand, to bring this unauthorised strike to an immediate end. If we cast our minds back to the many great disputes which have taken place from time to time we shall not discover that the Minister of Labour, at those particular times, was specially successful in immediately bringing those disputes to a termination. I would also remind the hon. Member that it is riot always advisable, when any sort of a dispute is caused, to immediately intervene, and expect that intervention to have the same result as an intervention after a careful consideration of the causes which have led up to the dispute. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) apparently fails to distinguish between the two kinds of railway disputes. In the first case, on the Tube railways we have a dispute that is unauthorised, that has not the support of the Union's Executive, and it is a most difficult situation. When we see two men fighting in the street and try to separate them when they are in the full flush of their anger, we find that neither one nor the other is prepared to break away. If you give them a little time, and let one get a little better of the other, intervention then would be much more likely to succeed. The difference between the two disputes is that the one with regard to the locomotive enginemen is a dispute that is founded upon an agreement, and is not a direct question of wages as in the other case. Here perhaps the Minister of Labour might succeed in his 1690 immediate intervention by trying to smooth out the differences that may exist as to the interpretation or operation of that agreement. I have had some connection with strikes and also some connection with Ministers of Labour in other Governments, and I have often been told by those in authority, who have the management of these disputes when they occur, that as a rule they are not prepared to intervene until they are asked to do so, because they do not wish to take up the position of being unwelcome guests.
Let me assure the two hon. Members who have placed themselves in the position of champions of the public interest, and especially the interests of the working classes who are likely to suffer because of the interruption of traffic caused by the dispute, that we are just as anxious as they are that the public interest shall be served, but we may not necessarily agree that the, methods they are suggesting to this House are quite the best to adopt. The Minister of Labour may well be trusted to intervene at what he considers to be the proper time, and I am quite sure that both he and his colleagues will be prepared to do all they can with just as much concern for the public interest as has been claimed by the hon. Members who are responsible for introducing this question.
§ Mr. SHAWMay I at the outset pay a tribute to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone), who made a statement that in a certain case the men would be justified in striking? If there were a little more admission of the genuine claims of men, and a little less of always placing the responsibility on the men, there would be more confidence in the country, fewer strikes, and a greater belief in the fair play of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I commend the example of the hon. Member for East Willesden to the hon. Member who initiated this Debate. There can be nothing worse than an engendering of the feeling among the organized workers of the country that they get all the criticism, and never an acknowledgment of their proper claims to respect and consideration. I suggest, again, that the hon. Member for East Willesden has shown a very good example, which, if followed, 1691 would lead only to good results. I noticed that the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who raised this question, was evidently of the opinion that the Government had been very lax, that the Minister in his replies had been very foolish, and that the responsibility in some way rested upon the Government. I believe that he would accuse the Government of being responsible for the earthquake in Japan, for the eruption of Stromboli, and even for the last comet. It is his method of argument. I suppose he assumes that it is valuable to his party. My belief is that it is not valuable to his party, and that it is a wrong method of argument. If the hon. Member really wants information to be conveyed definitely and in a friendly way, his best way of getting it is not to make a party attack when asking for information, but to ask for it in the courteous way in which he desires that it shall be given.
I pass from the hon. Gentleman to the 'Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who followed him. The Noble Lord put a perfectly straightforward question. He did diverge a little into the devious paths of his predecessor, but on the whole his question was a perfectly fair one. I want to ask him a question. When he is speaking of "essential services," does he mean to ask, "Is the Government prepared to run the trains?"
§ Viscount CURZONWhat I asked was, are the Government prepared to carry out the ordinary functions of Government, which, as I see them, are to ensure the fullest protection being given to those who are willing to work, to see that the dispute is tackled and brought to an end as soon as possible, to leave no stone unturned, and to intervene should they consider it advisable.
§ Mr. SHAWA perfectly clear, concise and understandable statement, and it does not include the idea that the Government is responsible for running the trains. Now, may I ask the hon. Member for West Woolwich whether he means by the "public services" that the Government should run the trains?
§ Sir K. WOODI say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that if a state of emergency arise, and matters develop as they have done, undoubtedly it would be the duty of the Government to orga 1692 nise a service for the people of this country.
§ Mr. SHAWThen I take it that when the country is in an emergency, the only way of settling the emergency is to adopt a Socialist system?
§ Sir K. WOODThe right hon. Gentleman has addressed another question to me to which I will reply. I do not consider that by any manner of means the Socialist system is involved, but when the country is ruined by lightning strikes of this kind, it is obviously the elementary duty of any Government to take the necessary steps to keep public services going.
§ Mr. SHAWThe Government would not take the railways in their charge. I suggest to the hon. Member that there can he no question of the Government taking out of the hands of the railway companies their services and running them.
§ Sir K. WOODI am not suggesting that.
§ Sir K. WOODI am in complete agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. SHAWIf the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, lie is quibbling. When he asks that the Government should take certain steps, surely the Government are entitled to ask what be means. If he means we are to run the trains, let him say so. If he does not mean that, let him say what he does mean. Let us be plain and straightforward with each other. I admit this is a serious dispute. It is too serious to use quibbling expressions about. We want to be honest. Will the hon. Member state definitely, does he mean that we as a Government should run the trains?
§ Sir K. WOODI am sorry I have not made myself clear. The Minister of Labour has definitely associated himself with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was that if all methods of conciliation failed, the Government had a duty to the community and that duty was not to run the trains, or to exercise the functions of the railway companies but to promote services 1693 of their own. That has been done constantly.
§ Mr. SHAWI must leave this subject now. To "run trains" and to "run services of our own" are statements beyond my understanding.
I will turn, if I may, to the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) who did put his case clearly. There could be no misunderstanding about that, and I will try to give him quite as frank an answer to his frank question. He wanted to know whether the Government will give full protection to the men who work during these disputes. My answer is, "Yes, undoubtedly; the fullest protection will be given to the men who work." The Noble Lord further wanted to know whether, in the event of this dispute spreading and certain public utilities being threatened, the Government will maintain those public utilities. Again I answer quite as frankly that the Government will do all it possibly can to maintain the public utilities. When I say that, I am speaking of food, lighting, water and power. The Government will do all it possibly can, and will take every step possible to maintain all these essential services. There will be no question about the fullest, possible authority being given to every Department of Government to take the steps that. I have said the Government are prepared to take, and I hope that the Noble Lord will admit that my answer has been as frank as he desired it to be. I now want to say a few words with regard to the dispute. I think there is to some extent a lack of perspective. After all, one has to remember that, had this dispute occurred in Glasgow, or Birmingham, or Leeds, or Manchester, very little would have been heard about it in this House.
§ Sir HARRY BRITTAINGlasgow might have had a word to say.
§ Mr. SHAWIf this dispute had occurred in Glasgow, it never would have come before this House; of that I am quite certain. There is no worse thing, it this agitation be a Communistic agitation—and there are differences of opinion as to that—there is no worse thing, if it be a Communistic agitation, than to get "rattled" about it. If the Communists believe that they can rattle you, I venture to say that you are helping their movement very considerably indeed. If I may 1694 venture to give a word of advice to the hon. Member who initiated the discussion—and I speak from some little knowledge of the subject—there are two things that will help the Communists. One is if they think they can rattle you, and the other is if they think that you are a shivering bourgeois. I venture to say that if the hon. Gentleman will take that to heart—
§ Sir K. WOODDoes the right hon. Gentleman think I look like one?
§ Mr. SHAWI venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that., if he will take my advice to heart, he will cease to be a very valuable asset of the Communist party. Now let me say a few words about the dispute itself. There is no question at all that this dispute is unofficial in the fullest sense of that term. The National Union of Railwaymen, through its executive, has already declared that it has neither part nor lot in the dispute, and has instructed its members not to stop work. The railway companies, on their part, have refused to see the representatives of the so-called unofficial strikers. Again, I want to put a point to the House, not as a party matter at all.
It is impossible for any Government to attempt to recognise a body which neither the trade unions nor the railway' companies will recognise, and the Government will not recognise any body except the body that is capable of negotiating a settlement. My Department—and here may I pay a tribute to the very skilled advisers that I have in these matters—my Department is in personal and active contact with the really representative people both on the employers' and on the workers' side. We shall do what we possibly can to get a settlement of the dispute, and I have already stated what we shall do if certain eventualities arise I think the little talk about rising for Whitsuntide might have been dropped out. Seriously, neither the hon. Gentleman nor his party nor our party desire to sit during Whitsuntide, and we might have left that out. Certainly, I have not the slightest desire to sit through Whitsuntide. Regretfully I may have to forgo my holiday—and I need it; but if I have to forgo it because I believe I can be of use here, I shall stay. But I can state quite categorically that 1695 up to the present there is no intention at all on the Government's part to call the House together in the middle of next week, as the hon. Member suggested. Every other promise he really wants f can give him in the fullest measure—maintenance of public services, protection and an attempt to settle the dispute.
§ Captain Viscount EDNAMI am going to couch my words in the same nonpartisan, non-controversial spirit as than speeches which have been made from these benches. We have no desire whatever to hinder the Government in any way in putting an end to this unfortunate strike. It is not speeches such as have been heard from these benches which will hinder negotiations, but speeches such as we have heard from the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), which was one of the most inflammable speeches I have ever heard in the House. I challenge the hon. Member to go at 5 o'clock to Finsbury Park Station, which is in my constituency, where he will see literally thousands of people treading each other down to get into a train which only has the capacity of holding a quarter of them.
§ Viscount EDNAMI should have thought the hon. Member would give me time to develop my challenge. To boast, as he boasted, that during the War, when he should have been somewhere else, a man without a grey hair in his head—the hon. Member seems to be pleased about it. I leave it to his own conscience. He boasted that during the War he deliberately organised two strikes. He told us not to get rattled because the machinery of the Government is going to stop the strike, and that if they get exasperated they will only make the negotiations more difficult. I challenge him to go to Finsbury Park, and utter the same sentiments there that he has uttered to-day, and see what those people would say to him. The statement we have just heard from the Minister is extremely unsatisfactory. He has not given me, at any rate, the impression that he intends to deal with this situation with firmness or with tact. To begin with, he condoned lightning strikes and congratulated the 1696 hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. H. Johnstone), not on his piece of good fortune in the sweepstake, which would have been a more reasonable congratulation, but on also condoning lightning strikes. I suggest that there is no congratulation whatsoever in a lightning strike. The hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman) very rightly, I think, complained that the workers in a sheltered and highly-protected industry like the railway workers could always get the best plums, and that real industrialists like the miners have only second place. The miners did behave in a proper manner the other day, and I think the negotiations which went on between the miners and the coal owners were most creditable. If the miners had struck it would not have been in the least degree a lightning strike, which is the last sort of strike that ought to be condoned or congratulated. I must say these few words, because I represent a constituency which probably is as hard hit by the strike as any in London. Our travelling facilities are bad enough as it is, and when extra hardship is imposed on these thousands of people for no fault of their own, it is only right that their representatives could see that the Government do everything in their power to help to case their condition. The Minister of Labour keeps tellings us that this is an unofficial strike, and that the union refuses to recognise it in any way. Why does he not ask the union why they do not expel from their union the people who are organising the strike?
§ Mr. B. SMITHThat is tact.
§ Viscount EDNAMThe hon. Member for Rotherhithe says tbat is tact. Whether it is tact or not his speech certainly was not tact. It seems to me that that course would help more than anything else to end the strike. The union cannot refuse to recognise the action of their members, and still retain them as members of the union. The Minister tells us that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent the picketing of the men who are a work and do not intend to join the strike. I hope that the Minister means that, because he told us that during the omnibus and tram strike, and yet every day the picketers were out trying to prevent omnibus drivers, who wanted to work, from going on to the streets. They did prevent them from doing so in many cases. Therefore, 1697 I hope that what the right lion. Gentleman says in this respect he will carry into effect on this occasion.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHe did not say he would stop picketing.
§ Viscount EDNAMHe distinctly said so
§ Mr. SHAWI never mentioned the word "picketing." I never said a word about it. I cannot break the law.
§ Viscount EDNAMIt does not matter how the right hon. Gentleman said it. He certainly said that he, or the Government he represented, would take every possible step to allow the workers who wanted to work to do so, and to prevent them from being interfered with. [HON. MEMBERS: "Protected!"] Protected! That comes to exactly the same thing as preventing picketing. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do that, then he is going to stop picketing. It is most unfortunate that, this strike should come at this particular moment. I hope the Government will approach those who are responsible for it in a most reasonable spirit. I do not want to raise any partisan feeling in the least degree. I do not say whether the men are right or whether they are wrong. I only want the Government to get the thing settled as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. COVEOn a point of Order. Are we to understand that the arrangement which was entered into at the beginning of the Session is to obtain in this Debate? You previously ruled, Mr. Speaker, that when a Minister had replied, no other speeches were to be allowed. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] I understand that a ruling was given that on these occasions, as the time had been allotted, no ocher speeches were to be made after the Minister had replied.
§ Mr. LANSBURYOn that point, I desire to say a word. On the Indian Debate, I was distinctly informed by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that, although there had only been two speeches, no more speeches could be allowed after the Minister had replied. He stated that you had made a schedule for each subject.
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo such suggestion was made. It is true that I informed the House that I have endeavoured to divide the time to-day among the different sub- 1698 jects which I was informed hon. Members wished to discuss, so that each subject should have its opportunity. After the present speech has concluded, I propose that another subject should be referred to
§ Mr. LANSBURYMust hon. Members inform you previously that they desire to speak?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf I am to be able to do my duty properly I must have some knowledge of the subjects to be brought forward, or else many Members would be cut out. What I do wish is to give each subject the best opportunity I can. If I were to call on everybody who wants to speak on each subject, we might give the whole day to the first subject, and then the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley would have less chance than he appears to have now.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThis is not the point. I wrote, and told you that I did not intend to submit myself to go to the Table and ask as a privilege the right to speak in this House. I have sat here on occasions for four and five hours wishing to speak, and being unable to do so. I do not complain of that. I am only one, and all of us must take our chance, but to-day a new ruling is given, and apparently you are giving that ruling now that persons who desire to speak on the Adjournment Motion must come to have it arranged. I have sat here while the discussion was on, hoping to speak. Then I was informed that only two people had spoken, and that subject was finished, and nobody else could speak
§ Mr. SPEAKERDo not let me be misunderstood. I did no such thing. I never hold myself bound by any arrangement made by Members who approach me. The fact is that I am rather inclined, on the other hand, to call an interesting Member who rises unexpectedly. May I say, in reference to subjects to be discussed on the Adjournment, that those which the House desires to hear discussed should have time given to them as far as possible. If this were not done, the first subject would occupy the whole day, to the exclusion of the others.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONOf course, when these subjects are concluded, any Member can, before the House adjourns, raise any subject he likes.
§ Viscount EDNAMI was unaware that there was a desire to have any other subject discussed, or I should have been more brief.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf it had not been you, it would have been someone like you.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf I have caught the observation of the hon. Member, it seems to me that he is making a reflection on the Chair and stating that I have shown partiality in calling on hon. Members.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI say deliberately, if you will allow me, that this afternoon two different rulings have been given. One when Mr. Deputy-Speaker was in the Chair and another one now.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not the point.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat is my point, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am not going to be insulted. You must keep these people quiet.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member will resume his seat when I rise—
§ Mr. LANSBURYThese are the people—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon Member was standing when I was standing.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat was because of Members opposite talking all the time.
§ Mr. SPEAKEROther hon. Members then called "Order."
§ Mr. LANSBURYNo. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) always breaks the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Name yourself!
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member threw an observation across the Floor which, if I caught it aright, was a reflection on the impartiality of the Chair. If I caught it correctly, I must ask him to withdraw that reflection on my impartiality.
§ Mr. NAYLORMay f. submit one point in justification of your ruling in the hope that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) will realise the value of what I say. I came to this House to-day without any intention of intervening in the Debate. I made no approach to the Chair, but Mr. Speaker 1700 called upon me, and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that that is proof of the impartiality of the Chair.
§ Mr. LANSBURYYou appear, Sir, to quite misunderstand the point at issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot allow the hon. Member to go from this point: Did he, in an observation made just now, reflect on the impartiality of the Chair in the choice of speakers to take part in the Debate? If that be the case, I must ask him to withdraw.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI cannot withdraw the statement that two different rulings have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!]
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am not asking the hon. Member to withdraw that statement. It is quite a different matter.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe point is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I shall not withdraw if I am ordered to withdraw. The point is this: I take away any sort of charge against you, Sir, or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think it is extremely unfortunate that two different rulings should have been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I can only take back anything that I have said across the Floor that is either disorderly or reflecting upon you as a proper occupant of that Chair.
§ Earl WINTERTONThe hon. Gentleman has mentioned my name. May I say distinctly that I indulged in no interruption.
§ Mr. LANSBURYYou are the most disorderly Member in the House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Chair has dealt with the matter, and it is not desirable that other hon. Members should interfere.
§ Earl WINTERTONI hope I shall be permitted to make a personal explanation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf I had thought that the Noble Lord was disorderly, it would have been my duty to have dealt with him.
§ Viscount EDNAMIf I had known that there was another subject to be 1701 taken to-day, I would not have tried to catch your eye. I do not often wish to speak, but in this subject I am very much interested, and so are my constituents, and I did wish to say a few words. The Government have cavilled at hon. Members on this side of the House, that when we were in office we were not able to do anything more in dealing with these strikes than the Government are doing at the present time. But we did not boast that we could hold office without strikes or of being able to settle strikes at once as hon. Members on that side of the House did when they were in opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Frequently, they used to tell us that when they came in office there would be no such thing as strikes, because there would not be the suspicions existing that there were between the workers and the Conservative Government when they were in power. I hope the right hon. Gentleman means what he says and will do everything in his power by the use of tact and firmness to deal with this most unfortunate situation.