PEERS’ HOSTILITY

Grey River Argus, 5 February 1930, Page 5

PEERS’ HOSTILITY

TO RELIEF OF POOR Insurance Bill “Spiked” (Aus. and N.Z. Cable Assn.) (Received Feb. 4 'at 6.50 p.m.) LONDON, February 3. Opposition benches in the' House of Lords were more crowded than they Lave been since the Parliament Bill struggle on January 19th for the consideration of the Insurance Bill. An urgent whip had been sent out, in response to which Peers were present: who have not attended the House for years.

The Peeresses’ iGallery was filled, {•nd many members of the House of Commons were at the bar of the House. The atmosphere was most intense when Lord Parmoor.' introduced the subject. He expressed the opinion that there was no need for any

excited statements about a crisis. The House of Lords was competent to suggest amendments to; bills within certain limits, but when the Speaker ruled that these were a breach of the House of’ Commons’ privilege, and. when the Commons rejected them by {’ large majority, then other considerations arose. He said Lord Salisbury had described the House of Lords’ action >as an assertion of anxiety concerning extra burdens being put on taxpayers. These were considerations which the constitutional practice and the Statute had committed to the House of Commons for a final decision. Lord Salisbury said that they were not merely there to make recommendations. He did accept the plea of breach of privilege, which "had. been used as a mere device to relieve the House of Commons of the duty of giving reasons for its action. He

would not insist upon Lord Darling’s new clause, but this intensified thei need for the Bill being only temporary. I I Lord Buckmaster said he hoped the J House would not take any action I which would appear hostile to the i ( ’aims of the poor people. He was J not impressed by the arguments for J making this measure only temporary. |1 f they were seeking tor a collision I with the House of Commons, that was not the moment to choose for a struggle. Thn House, without a division, decided not to insist on Lord Darling’s new clause.

The House, by 156 votes to 142, however, resolved to insist on the insertion of a time limit to the Bill. After the House of Lords’ decision, a Cabinet meeting was held. It was decided to call ia special meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party for, February 4th, and submit the matter] to the rank and file of the Labor?/ members. Undoubtedly the Labour members] are angry and a section are spoiling for a fight with the House of Lords,| but. the general impression in the lotlies is that a compromise will be reached, thus saving the Unemployment Bill and preventing a crisis.

WELL CRISIS ARISE? TALK OF GENERAL ELECTION. (Received Feb. 4 at 9.55 p.m.) LONDON, February 4. The House of Lords’ amendment comes again before! the House of Commons bo-night. If again the House deletes the time limit, it will be a most serious challenge’ to the House of Lords, but there is reason to believe that the House of Lords will Übcept a compromise. A gesture from the Government is likely to be the substitution of a. three years limit instead of one year, and it is understood that Cabinet intend to put this proposal before the 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.

Doubtless the Labour Party’s meet ing this morning will disclose a itv who are anxious tlu> disagree, but the Ministers persuaded they should have no difficulty in securing a majority for their compromise. The fact of the Naval Conference is generally recognised as a strong argu nient against a. general election at the present time.