HOUSE OF LORDS CROWDED.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18491, 5 February 1930, Page 9

HOUSE OF LORDS CROWDED.

Unemployed Insurance Bill. LABOUR MEMBERS ANGRY. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received February 4, 7.10 p.m.) 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 House of Commons’ rejection of the Lords” amendments to the Unemployed Insurance Bill. An urgent whip had been sent out, in response to which 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 introduced the subject, expressing the opinion that there was no need for excited statements about a crisis. The House of Lorjhs was competent to suggest amendments to Bills within limits, but when the Speaker ruled these a breach of the House of Commons’ privilege, and the House of Commons rejected them by a large majority, other considerations arose. Lord Salisbury had described the House of Lords’ action as an assertion of anxiety concerning the extra burdens being put on tax payers. These were considerations which constitutional practice and statute had committed to the House of Commons for final decision. Lord Salisbury said that they were not merely there to make recommendations. He accepted the plea of a 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 that the House would not take any 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 the struggle. The'House, without 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 on February 4 and submit the matter to the rank and file.

Labour members undoubtedly are angry, and a section are spoiling for a fight with the Lords, but the general impression in the lobbies is that a compromise will be reached, saving the Unemployment Bill and preventing a crisis.

UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASING. WORST FOR SEVEN YEARS. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received February 4, 7.55 p.m.) LONDON, February 4. In the House of Commons, on the motion for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, Sir A. SteelMaitland raised the unemployment problem, pointing out that the number of workless was now higher than at any period for seven years, and nearly 50,000 more than last year. Mr J. H. Thomas (Lord Privy Seal) replying, admitted that the live register figures were 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 ihistake to magnify the figures. Business men had told him that the false impression was doing incalculable harm. Mr Samuel pleaded that this was a national and both sides should be summoned to aid the Government. He asked how far had Mr Thomas proceeded with his plans for the Empire development. The Bill was read a third time. COMPROMISE POSSIBLE. NO DESIRE TO LOSE BILL. (United Press Association—By Electrlo Telegraph—Copyright.) '(Received February 4, 10.20 p.m.) LONDON, February 4. The House of Lords amendment comes again to the House of Commons to-night. If they again delete 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 accept a compromise gesture from the Government. This is likely to be the substitution of a three years’ limit instead of one, and it is understood 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 immediate dissolution.

Doubtless the Labour Party meeting in the morning will disclose that a minority are anxious to disagree, but Ministers are persuaded that they should have no difficulty in securing .a majority for their compromise.