POLITICAL BITTERNESS ON EVE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION

Wanganui Chronicle, 15 September 1948, Page 5

POLITICAL BITTERNESS ON EVE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION

Bill To Lessen Veto Of The Lords, And So Nationalise Steel

'From Alan Mitehell, Special N.Z.P.A. Correspondent) Received 7.20 p.m. LONDON, Sept. 14 Political bitterness accompanies the opening of the Fourth Parliamentary sessions of Britain’s Labour Government today by the King.

It will be a short session, lasting a fortnight, and though a statement on the international

situation is expected from the Foreign Secretary (Mr. Bevin) tomorrow and a slow down of demobilisation is likely to be discussed, the main business is to pass the Parliamentary Bill. This is designed to curtail the veto powers of the House of Lords in order to clear the way for nationalising steel. It provides that the delaying power of the House of Lords is reduced from two years to one, and that in future the Lords will have a chance to reject a Bill twice only, instead of three times. Once the Parliament Bill is law the way will be clear for the Government’s Steel Bill to be placed on the Statute Book by 1950 when it is expected that the next General Election will be held, thus fulfilling the Labour Party’s election programme of 1945, which included nationalisation of this industry. The Conservatives are adamantly opposed to steel being nationalised. Though it is known that the more moderate of Cabinet members have their doubts about nationalising steel, it has been insisted upon by the Minister of Health (Mr. Aneuran Bevan), and what is described as “other ke ™E ers t^le Left Wing conscience.” The comment of the Conservative press on the special session is bitter. Labour has been accused of a “shabby manoeuvre,” trimming its sails for the General Election and putting the country to needless expense at a time when it is faced with a crisis in Europe and unsolved economic problems and unpleasant situations in Malaya and Hyderabad. “The Times” declares of the Governments action: “It is largely electioneering,” and the Liberalist “Manchester Guardian” says: “Nothing

. good is to be said of the object of the i session, or of the means by which the [ Constitution is to be altered to satisfy i a stale party plan."

tions that the steel industry is one of the most efficient in the country and does not require nationalising, and that many steel workers are far from enthusiastic at the prospect of becoming State employees. I Mr. Alfred Edwards, M.P., who was expelled from the Labour Party for | his opposition to steel nationalisation, has declared that the prospect in all nationalised industries is '’increasing costs and probably a decline in production. Should steel go down to the same disaster," he added, "this country would be finished and forty-six millions of us would go down with it to penury.” ■ Viscount Simon, criticising the Parliament Bill, has declared: "A new constitutional theory is growing up quite contrary to what previously prevailed, and fraught with increasing danger to our liberties.” This theory is that once a political party has gained a Parliamentary majority that majority may properly do whatever it likes with our constitutional Structure, regardless of what the community as a whole may wish, or think, caring nothing for the disturbance created in the balance of the constitutional machine. "The Economist" calls the Government action of enforcing an extra session “wasteful and undignified,” and points out that nothing the Government does can disturb the simple truth that the next election will decide whether steel nationalisation is . to be put into operation. The Labour I Party is not to be deterred from its purpose, however, and some hard-hit-ting exchanges can be expected in the House of Commons when the Parliament Bill is discussed, with both sides of the House firing what may be regarded as the first shots in the genel ral election campaign.