BRITISH POLITICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 November 1929, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

QUESTION IN COMMONS. [United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.] LONDON, Nov. 21. In answer to a question in the Commons as to whether New Zealand and other contributors to the Singapore Base had been consulted prior to the Oovernment’s decision to suspend the new work, Mr MacDonald - '] contended that his answers on Monday had dealt with the question. IN THE COMMONS. .... ‘\. LONDON, November 21. Mr W. T. Everard (Conservative) asked: Does the Government intend to repay the Dominions their contributions ? Mr Alexander replied: That is premature ! Sir W. Davidson (Conservative): Were hot the contributions given on a distinct understanding that the scheme would be carried out in its entirety? The Speaker of the House here interposed. He said: That does not arise. LONDON, November 20. In the House of Commons, Commander Kenworthy asked: Was there a break clause in the main contract ifor ' the construction of the Singapore Base,'. permitting alterations or modifications: in certain eventualities?. Mr Alexander: There is no such 1 clause in the main’contract, hut that did not mean that the. Admiralty had no power to alter or modify’^the work, Commander Kenworthy: Is it, not tisual to have siich a clause ? Mr A,, A. Somerville. (Conservative) nsked: May not serious claims arise under these contracts if they are considerably altered or modified? Mr Alexander said that he hoped that the House would not discuss any legal difficulties which might arise. Commander Kemvorthy: Was not the previous Government responsible for making this contract without any break clause? Mr F. G. Penny (Conservative): Will the Government be liable for compen- 1 sation under the contract?

To these queries no reply was given

(British .Official Wireless)

, r .'i (Received Hiis day at 10 a.m.). IttJGfBY, November ,21. ~ , Miss, M.jßondfield' (Minister of Lahour) moved in the House of Commons ..the second reading, of. the UnemployK ment;insurance Bill. She; said the ob-

jept.-of, the measure was to. remedy the

outstanding defects pf, the,present sys- ,, tern. The most; important change in . the, Bill, was the, abolition of the condition of. placing on a claimant for unemployment pay the onus that lie was genuinely seeking work, and on the submission of a new claim placing on the' Labour Exchange the onus of. showing J . ; jiot only that employment of a suitable' for-the claimant was available," but that he could reasonably have been . expected to know of it.

Miss Bondfield- contended that, the old, condition involved , a psychological .test, which. 1 it. was* administratively, im- ‘ .possible to maintain with; the least'de- .‘ (’greeiof- -equity; particularly iit depress---vr-ed*.areas..- • >

Another-; important proposal ;of the G - foill was contained in the clause lowerviviAgrthe minimum' agei for insurance. •1 •• The;. Government had announced - their . ..intention',-pf raising the school leaving - age;to L5-.andi,that • step would be • taken..not; later, than 1931. •'f. The bill proposed .that wheq it 1 was itakdn the minimum age for' insurance should be reduced from the present age of 16 to the school leaving age. . . .Mr Lloyd George strongly criticised the Bill. It was, he said, difficult to

.say no to a proposal giving 2s extra to the wives of unemployed, but his p'rinv cipal misgivings were as to the tremendous expenditure which was being run up as a result of the Bill as a whole, expenditure which this country could not payv We had ’ already, since the general election, added a burden of $101,000,000 tohnext year’s Budget. .

With regard to the extension of unemployment 1 pay to boys of 15, Mr Lloyd George said they ought to be ■putting the whole of their efforts into seeing that young men of 17, 18, 19, ■and even beyond that age had got something to do. He appealed to the

■Government to make an effort to find

work for the younger men instead of "■ brining in doles to increase their demoralisation.

' IN THE" COMMONS. LONDON, Nov. 21. In the Commons, Lord, Ponsonbv, replying ' to. Lord Passfield, said he thought no useful purnose could be served by an inquiry into the whole field of migration to the Dominions. The forthcoming Imperial Conference would doubtless discuss the matter. Hon Clvnes, in answer to a question.

said there was no reason for investi-

gation of Communist activities. throUghout ‘ the Empire, as the Communist Party’s aims and;activities were clearly stated in its publications.