BRITISH POLITICS

Hokitika Guardian, 19 February 1931, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS

IN THE COMMONS. INTEREST IN AUSTRALIA LUnited Press Association—By Electri lelb^rapU.— L -Pyngtii.j (Received this day at 1.0 p.m.) LONDON, February 18. Several more questions about debt application appear on the order paper. Some commoners are opposed to any reduction. Mr Ala rider, who prominently questioned Air 1 bourns yesterday, says Australia should pay. It is known that Mr Thomas is taking action to prevent derogatory comment, and it is significant that in the Commons yesterday tiro Speaker intervened when such an attitude was expressed. The keenest interest is being taken in Australian political crisis, particularly in Government quarters. Australia’s most influential friends in politics here consider Mr Lyons the man who carried Australia on his shoulders is entitled to the fullest support.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL, LONDON, February 18. In the Commons, Mr La.Wsun ill moving the second reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, embodying increased borrowing powers, giving an instance of the rapid development of the situation, pointed out that months ago -France had not admitted there were any unemployeds. She now had 1,300,009. Instead of wage cuts what was needed was an improvement of the workers standard of life, in order to increase their power of consumption of goods. Air Stool Maitland in moving the rejection of the Bill, said unemployment was still increasing, despite Air Snowden’s warning of the gravity of the financial situation. The Bill would commit them uncontrolled to an additional twenty millions of ordinary benefits. The transitional benefits of Air Snowden did not balance the budget. This blow to British credit would intensify the hardship by a reaction upon trade. If they balanced the budget, it must he by means of fees 1 *

taxation, which Air Snowden admitted that industry was unable to bear. The only way was a reduction of misplaced expenditure. A considerable proportion of the unemployment insurance expenditure was not justified. EDUCATION BILL. REJECTED BY LORDS, (Received 12320 p.itl.) LONDON, Februal-y 18- . In the Hoilse of Lords, Lord Sanderson, said all arguments against the Bill were the same iw those used against every educational advance, During sixty years, much of his life had been spent in teaching working men and women who found it most difficult to bridge the gap which they had lost by leaving school too soon. Those who had been at school longer 'had not better brains, but were better equipped for further studies.

Lord Beauchamp advocated a postponement of the Bill in the interest of the settlement of the problem now provided by the schools. The local authorities already had permissive powers to extend the school age. Lord Gorell as member of the Hadow Committee of reorganisation of education expressed the opinion that opponents of tlse Bill would be voting against educational progress. Lord Ponsouby said economy was not the real motive of the opposition. You going to vote en mass against the priniciple of extra years of schooling for poor children. The country would thus interpret your action. The rejection of the motion was carried by 168 to 22 votes. The minority consisted of fourteen Labour Peers, three Conservatives (Viscounts Cecil, and Esher and Lord Teynham), one Liberal (Lord Sandhurst), Archbishop of York, Bishops of Liverpool, St. Albans and Southwark.