asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the recent victimisation of the travelling public and the consequent loss and inconvenience caused by the unofficial strike on the tubes, he will introduce legislation making strikes of this character in our transport services a punishable offence, with a provision that it be obligatory to permanently replace such strikers; and, if for any valid reason this cannot be done, whether he will call a conference of responsible trade union officials to discuss the adoption of rigorous measures to prevent these occurrences which at present can be carried on with impunity?

asked the Minister of Labour what steps the Government actually took to bring the recent unauthorised strike upon the Under-round and Great Western Railways to an end; and what steps the Government propose to take to prevent any future infliction of a similar character upon the citizens of London?

It is not desirable that the steps taken by the Government to assist the parties to bring the recent strike to an end should be stated, because many conversations of a confidential nature took place which obviously cannot be disclosed. The policy of the Government regarding trade disputes affecting public services was stated by the Lord Privy Seal on the 3rd April, in reply to questions by the hon. Members for Woolwich and Peckham. It may be accepted, I think, that trade unions will be generally supported by their members in any efforts they may make for safeguarding constitutional arrangements for the settlement of working conditions, and I do not think it necessary to call a conference, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great danger to any scheme of electrification if this anarchy and mob law are allowed to continue, and that they are going to react on the trade unions and the honest worker who should be protected?

Are we to understand from the answer that the Government took no specific steps to bring the dispute to an early conclusion? Furthermore, are we to understand, from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give any information as to what he did say, that anything which he did was thoroughly unsuccessful and inefficient?

There is a rule against repetition.

In order that the Noble Lord may understand what the Government did, I will read the answer again.

HON. MEMBERS:

No, no!

Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained where the funds for this strike came from, and whether the strike was brought about by Communist efforts?

I must see that question before it is answered.

On a point of Order. In view of the supplementary question, which casts a reflection on a certain body of men who came out on strike, should not some reply be given?

I stopped the question, because of its implication.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the matters and circumstances that led to the recent lightning strike on the London Electric Railways?

I have been asked to reply. It is not the intention of the Government to institute the inquiry proposed.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the public are perfectly entitled to know the circumstances and the events which have led up to this strike?

Certain constitutional negotiations are about to take place on the matters which led to the strike, and I think it highly undesirable to institute an inquiry until the result of the discussions is known, and then it will be possible to see what is the best thing to do.

Will the Minister inform the House with whom these constitutional negotiations are taking place?

They are between the unions and the railway companies.

What are constitutional negotiations?

Constitutional negotiations are generally understood to be discussions between the leaders of the unions and the representatives of the companies.

Have the public no rights?

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement of Mr. Cramp, of the National Union of Railwaymen, that the foul disease of Communism was undermining all the unions of the country?

As a diligent reader of the papers I have—

This is the subject of a later question.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the undermining of trade union organisations throughout the country by Communistic influences, as exemplified by the recent unauthorised strike on the London electric railways; and what action the Government are taking to safeguard the public interest in the matter and, in particular, to prevent the interruption of public utility services without legal notice?

I have no evidence to prove that the recent strike was due to Communistic influences. With regard to the latter part of the question, the hon. Member will be aware that workers who cease work without notice are already subject to action for breach of contract. The question whether Section 4 of the Conspiracy Act should be extended to cover other services requires careful consideration, but at the moment the Government do not see their way to propose legislation on this subject.

Has the Prime Minister not seen the recent statement by trade union leaders that the whole movement is undermined by these Communistic influences?

Might I ask the Prime Minister if this organisation is an illegal organisation, and if it is not, then has it not a perfect right to carry on propaganda in any way that it thinks is reasonable?

Mr. DICKSDN:

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information of the attempts to undermine trade union organisation by so-called patriotic Tory organisations?

In reference to the first supplementary question, hon. Members must draw a distinction between evidence which proves and statements that make certain things very likely. So far as the Government are concerned, they can only act upon proof, and not upon supposition. With regard to the other question, the decision whether it is a legal or an illegal organisation does not exactly rest with me. I am not a lawyer. There has been no declaration made that it was illegal, but, nevertheless, that is no reason why an organisation pursuing certain methods should not be very carefully watched.

Has the Prime Minister heard the answer just given by the Minister of Labour, to the effect that no inquiry has been held, and does he not think these questions show the desirability of the Government getting some information on the point, and cannot he undertake to set up an inquiry when the negotiations alluded to by the Minister of Labour have come to an end?

Will the Prime Minister make inquiry as to whether any of the strikers have been refused reinstatement, and, if not, will he take steps as far as possible to make the position of the Government clear, and prevent these disturbing questions?