BRITISH UNEMPLOYED

Otago Witness, Issue 3961, 11 February 1930, Page 30

BRITISH UNEMPLOYED

HOUSE OF LORDS DISCUSSION. THE INSURANCE BILL. LONDON, February 3. The Opposition benches in the House of Lords were more crowded than they have been since the Parliament Bill struggle of 1911 for the consideration of the rejection by the House of Commons of the House of Lords’ amendments in the Unemployed Insurance Bill. An urgent whip had been sent out, in response to which peers who had not attended for years were present. 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 introduced the subject, expressing the opinion that there was no need for excited statements about a crisis. The House of Lords was competent to suggest amendments to Billswithin limits, but when the Speaker ruled these a breach of the House of Commons’ privilege, and the House of Commons rejected them, a large number of other considerations arose. 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 constitutional practice and the statute had committed to the House of Commons for final decision.

Lord Salisbury said they were not merely there to make recommendations. He did not 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 the need for the Bill being only temporary. Lord Buckmaster hoped the House would not take action which would appear to be hostile to the claims of poolpeople. He was not impressed by the arguments for making the measure temporary. If they were seeking a collision with the. House of Commons that was not the moment to 1 choose for a struggle. The House, without a division, decided not to insist on Lord Darling’s new clause, but by 156 votes to 142 resolved to insist on the insertion of a time limit to the Bill. After the House of Lords’ decision a Cabinet meeting was held, and it was decided to call a special meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party for February 4, and submit the matter to the rank and file. Labour members are undoubtedly angry, and a section of them is spoiling for a fight with the House of Lords, but the general impression in the lobbies is that a compromise will be reached, saving the Unemployment Bill and preventing a crisis.

The principal amendment to the Bill by the House of Lords was that unemployment insurance should only last for a year, to give the Government time to reconsider its views.

COMPROMISE AGREED TO. LONDON. February 5. The members of the House of Com mons at 11.30 considered the reason of the House of Lords insisting on a time limit, Mr MacDonald, who was greeted with loud Labour cheers, said it was necessary to be perfectly plain. The amendments undoubtedly raised the question of privi lege. “ and it is interference on the part of the House of Lords with our rights to determine how the money of the country is to be spent. Hitherto when the House of Commons deleted privileged amendments, the House of Lords agreed, hut to-night we are informed by the House of Lords that as long as' the Labour Government is in office it will sit and criticise Labour Bills. As a subcommittee of the Tory Party admits, the decision has put the Government in a fix, as it was meant to do.”

Mr MacDonald added: If we drop the Bill we will put it into the category of Bills awaiting the operation of ’he Parliament Act, and the finance of the un employment funds will be bankrupt in 10 to 14 days. We therefore propose to amend the House of Lords amendment because it is absolutely unworkable as the administrative machinery will bo hardly in working order in 12 months. The House of Lords amendment proposes a time limit which would finish before certain important changes in the Bill would come into operation, therefore the Government proposes to substitute June 1933, for March, 1931, and thus give

time for the administrative and adjudi cative machinery to come into operation This will give time for the Act to be tried as a reasonable experiment. If revision is necessary it can be undertaken in a clearer, calmer atmosphere, for a double reason—first, defence of the liberties and privileges of the House and second, because the Act is a piece of practical, workable legislation I beg to move the resolution amending the House of Lords amendment. Mr Winston Churchill said that the course Mr MacDonald had outlined c .1mended itself to the Opposition, but in reference to the statement that she Labour Party could never expect fair treatment from the House of Lords be pointed out that no minority party was ever treated with more generosity than the present Labour Government. The attack was made in a sense of grievance, but the members of the Labour Party were merely pampered darlings.— (Laughter. )The House of Lords was entitled to reject the Bill. After Mr Samuel and Mr Devlin had supported the amendment, it was carried.

LIMIT OF OPERATION EXTENDED RUGBY, February 5.

Shortly after midnight the House of Commons accepted, without a division, the Government’s proposals for a compromise with the House of Lords on the Unemployment Insurance Bill. The Government's proposal, which was endorsed by a full meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party yesterday morn ing, was to accept the House of Lords amendment confining the operation of the Bill to one year, and then to pass another amendment extending this limit to three years. In announcing the Government’s decision the Prime Minister declared that the House of Lords amendment was as an encroachment on the House of Commons’ privileges and an interference with the rights of the House of Commons to determine how the money was to be spent. Mr Churchill, on behalf of the Conservative Par.y, agreed with the Government’s decision, out emphasised that under the Parliament Act the House of Lords retained bargaining power. It could, and should, bring into legislation an advisory element. Sir Herbert Samuel announced Liberal assent, and said that the Liberals would always support the privileges of the House of Commons. The dispute in this case, however, was so small that the Bill could not be sacrificed.

THE DEADLOCK ENDED. RUGBY, February 5. Lord Parmoor, for the Government, moved in the House of Lords to-day the compromise amendment passed by the House of Commons. He said the compromise amendment did not delete the time limit imposed by the House of Lords upon the operation of the Bill, but extended the limit of one year to June, 1933. Lord Salisbury, for the Conservatives, said he did not intend to ask the House to refuse the motion, which was thereupon passed without a division. The deadlock between the House of Lords and the House of Commons over tbit matter thus ended. THE UNEMPLOYED ARMY’. BIGGEST FOR MANY’ YEARS. LONDON, February 4. On the motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, Sir Arthur Steel Maitland raised the unemployment problem, pointing out that the number of those without work was nowhigher than at any period for seven vears, and nearly 50,000 more than last year. Mr Thomas (Minister in Charge of Unemployment), in replying, admitted that the live register of figures was worse, and moreover at least 100,000 must be added by the end of the month by reason of the operation of the new Unemployment Insurance Bill, but it was a profound mistake to magnify the figures. Business men told him that the false impression was doing incalculanle harm. Sir Herbert Samuel pleaded that in this national emergency both sides should be summoned to aid the Government. He asked how- far had Mr Thomas proceeded with his plans for Empire development. The Bill was read a third time. RUGBY, February 4. The total of unemployed on January 27 was 1,491.500, which was 18,09*8 more than that of a week before and 97,422 more than a year before. The Unemployment Grants Committee has approved of relief schemes totalling £1,808.000, which will give employment to approximately 5000. No fewer than 1004 schemes were submitted, costing £19,000,000.