LABOUR MEMBERS ANGRY

Taranaki Daily News, 5 February 1930, Page 9

LABOUR MEMBERS ANGRY

FIGHT BETWEEN HOUSES

UNEMPLOYMENT ISSUE LORDS PRESS AMENDMENT By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Rec. 6.50 p.m. London, Feb. 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 House of Commons’ rejection of the House of Lords’ amendments in the Unemployment Insurance Bill. An urgent whip had been sent out, in response to which peers were present who had not attended for yeans. 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 crises. The House of Lords was competent to suggest amendments to Bills within limits, but when the Speaker ruled that these were a breach of the House of Commons’ privilege and that House rejected them by a large majority > other considerations arose. Lord Salisbury had described the House of Lords’, action as the assertion of anxiety concerning the extra burdens being put on the taxpayers. These were considerations which constitutional practice and 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 intensified the need for the Bill being only temporary. Lord Buckmaster hoped the House would-not take action which would appear hostile to the claims of poor people. 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 choose for a strug-s gle. The House, without a division, decided not to inisst on Lord Darling’s new clause, but by 156 votes to 142 resolved to insist on the insertion of the time limit to the Bill.

After the House of Lords’ decision Cabinet held a meeting and decided to call a special \meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party to-morrow and submit the matter to the rank and file. Labour members are undoubtedly angry and a section 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” House of Lords amendment will come again before the House of Commons to-night. If the Commons again delete the time limit it will be a most serious challenge to the House of Lords, but there is reason to believe the House of Lords will accept a compromise gesture from the Government. This is likely to be the substitution of a threeyear time limit instead of a one-year, and it is understood Cabinet intends to put this proposal before the party in order to avoid losing the Bill, as it recognised that a struggle with the House of Lords will necessitate an immediate dissolution.

Doubtless the Labour Party meeting this morning will disclose a minority anxious to disagree, but the Ministers are persuaded they should have no difficulty in securing a majority for their compromise. The naval conference is generally recognised ae a strong argument in an election at the present time.