Tension in Parliament

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 889, 5 February 1930, Page 9

Tension in Parliament

LORDS’ AMENDMENT REJECTED

Battle With House of Commons UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE BILL United r.A.—By Tele graph—Copyright Kecd. 10.30 a.m. LONDON*. Tuesday. A MEETING of the Parliamentary Labour Party considered the House of Lords amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Bill. It is understood the Government is prepared to amend the clause making the measure operative for three years instead of one. "When the House of Lords met to consider the rejection by the House of Commons of the Lords’ amendment to this Bill, the Opposition benches were more crowded yesterday than they have been since the Parliament Bill struggle of 1911.

An urgent whip had been sent out. In response to this peers were present who had not attended for years. The peeresses’ gallery was filled and many members of the House of Commons were at the bar of the House. The atmosphere was most intense when Lord Parmoor, Lord President of the Council, introduced the subject. He expressed the opinion that there was no need for excited statements about a crisis. The House of Lords was competent to suggest amendments to the Bill within limits, hut when the Speaker ruled that those amendments constituted a breach of the privilege of the House of Com-

mons, and when the House of Commons rejected them by a large majority, other considerations arose. CLASH INOPPORTUNE Lord Parmoor said tlffe Marquess of Salisbury had described the action of the House of Lords as an assertion of its anxiety about extra burdens being put upon the taxpayers. Those were considerations which constitutional practice and statute had committed to the House of Commons for final decision. The Marquess of Salisbury said they were not merely there to make recommendations. He did not accept the plea of a breach of privilege. That had been used as a mere device to relieve the House of Commons of its duty to give reasons for its action. He would not insist upon tho new clause proposed by Lord Darling, but that intensified the need for the Bill to he only temporary. Lord Buckmaster said he hoped the House would not take action which

would appear hostile to the claims of poor people. He was not impressed by the arguments in favour of making the measure temporary. If they were seeking a collision with the House of Commons that was not the moment to choose for the struggle. URGENT LABOUR CAUCUS Without division the House decided not to insist on Lord Darling's new clause. However, by 156 votes to 142. it resolved to insist upon the insertion of a time limit clause in the Bill. After this decision of the House of Lords, a meeting of the Cabinet was held. It was decided to call a special meeting of the Parliamentary Laboui Party for tomorrow, and to submit the question to the rank and file of the party. Labour members are undoubtedly angry, and a section is spoiling for a fight with the Lords. However, the general impression in Parliamentary circles is that a compromise will be reached which will save the Unemployment Bill and prevent a crisis. The time limit amendment to the Unemployed Insurance Bill, which the House of Lords is pressing, will again come before the House of Commons this evening. If once more the latter deletes the clause, it will be a most serious challenge to the House of Lords. TO SAVE THE BILL There is reason to believe, however, that the House of Lords will accept a compromise gesture from the Government. This is likely to be the substitution of a three years’ limit instead of a one year’s limit. It is understood that the Cabinet intends to put this proposal before the Labour Party in order to avoid losing the Bill, as it is recognised that a struggle with the House of Lords will necessitate an immediate dissolution. No doubt at the Labour Party’s meeting tomorrow, there will be disclosed a minority anxious to disagree, but Ministers are persuaded that they should have no difficulty in securing a majority for their compromise. The fact is that the Naval Confer ence is generally recognised as a strong argument against an election at the present time.

The struggle between the House of Commons and the Lords has arisen from a motion in the House of Lords on January 21 by the Marquess of Salisbury that unemployment insurance only last for one year, in order to give the Government time to reconsider its views. It was carried by 107 votes to 18. Lord Arnold strongly protested that the motion would produce chaos in the House. The House of Commons declined to accept this amendment.