LABOUR AMENDMENT TO BEVERIDGE PLAN

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 42, 19 February 1943, Page 3

LABOUR AMENDMENT TO BEVERIDGE PLAN

DEFEATED IN HOUSE

War Cabinet Stands By Official Statement

N.Z. Press Association. —Copyright Rec. 11.30 a.m. LONDON, Feb. 18. The Labour amendment in the House of Commons, demanding the immediate implementation of the Beveridge Social Security Plan, was defeated by 335 to 119 votes. The Government motion welcoming the report was carried without division. The amendment was moved m the names of the following Laboui members: —Mr. A. Barnes (East Ham. S ) Mr. Emanuel Shmwell (Seaham, Durham), Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent), and Mr. Griffiths A secret meeting of the Parliamentary Labour party 1S Relieved to have decided to support the executive's amendment expi casing dissatisfaction with the Government's explanation of its policy. This would have placcd Labour Ministers in an embarrassing position. T Jr.rhf»i-t After Home Secretary, Mr. Heibert Morrison, had wound up tne debate, and before the vote was taken, tne Minister of Labour, Mr. Ernest Bevin, is understood to have told a special meeting of the Labour Parliamentary party that he would regard the party's support of the Labour amendment as tantamount to a vote oi censure on the Labour members of the Cabinet and that he believed that the Labour Ministers would resign from the Cabinet in the event of the majority of the Labour members supporting the amendment. Mr. Morrison Defends Government In his speech in the House, Mr. Morrison said that if the amendment was carried it would obviously raise constitutional and Parliamentary issues of a serious order. "I am mystified," he said, "at the belief expressed in some quarters, that the Government is trying to evade the issue. Sir William Beveridge, himself, contemplated the plan as not operating until after the war. "Opposition or semi-detached parties have too often made wild promises and then failed to carry them out when they attained power. I will not be a party to any such political jiggery-pokery. Sir William Beveridge, himself, thought that the plan should be taken in stages. I think the Government will be thanked for refusing to make reckless promises. We do not want a repetition of what happened after the war—the soldiers coming back and being promised paradise and then not getting it." Caustic Critics in House and Press Before the House of Commons debate a meeting of the War Cabinet had decided that Sir John Anderson's statement to the House of Commons on the Government's attitude to the Beveridge plan, with the reservations contained therein, should not in any way be modified. The Labour members of the Cabinet attended and the War Cabinet took its decision with the full knowledge of the viewpoint of the Labour members of the Commons. A lengthy, and sometimes acrimonious, debate following the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood, brought criticism of the Government from all sides of the House. The Times, in a leading article, says Sir Kingsley "Wood did little to allay doubts and Suspicions about the Government's approach to the problem. The Government's qualified acceptance of the plan left the impression that action is only vaguely desirable and may be postponed for years or even deferred altogether. In a coming era of poverty and depression Sir Kingsley Wood's financial objections are largely irrelevant and the objection to the immediate establishment of a of Social Security would not survive examination."