VOTE OF CENSURE REJECTED

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21400, 16 February 1935, Page 13

VOTE OF CENSURE REJECTED

Unemployment Debate In Britain MR LANSBURY'S ATTACK (PRITTSH OFFICIAI WIREI.KSS ! (Received February 15, 7.5 p.m.) RUGBY, February 14. By a majority of 374 votes to 68 the House of Commons rejected the | vote of censure on the Government moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr George Lansbury), who alleged ineptitude in the handling of the unemployment problem. Sir Herbert Samuel (leader of the Liberal party) joined in the criticism, as did Mr R. J. G. Boothby, a Conservative. The Prime Minister (Mr Ramsay Mac Donald) asked for cooperation in handling the problem. The Prime Minister spoke in the | House of Commons in the debate on I unemployment which arose on the j motion of censure moved by Mr I George Lansbury (leader of the Opposition) Mr Lansbury criticised in particular the operation of the Unemployment Assistance Board, saying that a central bureaucracy had been set up in such haste that neither those who framed nor those who administered it really understood it. The motion of censure protested I against the acceptance of the uni employment of 2,000,00:) persons as permanently inevitable, and demanded that a committee of the Cabinet, like the Committee of Imperial Defence or the War Cabinet boldly undertake the national reconstruction of industry, agriculture, and housing in order to prevent a whole generation growing up without occupation Mr Lansbury said that in spite of the Government's optimism there were now one-third more people who had been unemployed more than a year than in 1931. The figures for pauperism had risen from 369 in 10.000 of the population in 1931 to 482, while outside the poor law and the unemployment insurance there was increased unemployment among blackcoatecl workers which added hundreds of thousands to the total. As there were actually 2.250.000 Unemployed there was no ground for the Government's claim of victory over unemployment. The Government had failed to recognise that the present economic system had broken down. Prime Minister's tSpeech The Prime Minister said it would be better if the Opposition, instead of criticising, would co-operate with the Government in devising practical schemes to deal with the problem. The Government would accept with alacrity any proposals provided they were definitely constructive. The Government aimed at getting the unemployed back into indusEfioi'ts had been made during Ihe last few days to create a feeling of uncertainty, and statements had been made without a shadow of foundation and apparently more for financial than for political purposes. He cited the continued expansion of the sU."-i trade and said 1934 had been the be:U coal year 1930. Negotiations proceeding with other countries promised further reductions in the number of unemployed. Mr J. Cleary, the Labour victor in the Wavertree by-election, claimed that he had been returned os an expression of mass resentment at the Government's poliev towards the unemployed. Sir Herbert Samuel (Liberal) said the Government had muddled and mishandled unemployment relief. Though Mr Stanley had made a brave retreat the country felt that the situation should not have arisen. The turning-point in the fortunes of the Govornmeri <"'>mr' with Ihe failure of Ihe World Economic Conference. The President of the United States maimed it but it was killed by the British Government's declaration that whatever other countries did it would maintain its quotas and tariffs. Within, three years Britain had lost half her foreign trade, and at the present rate of recovery it would take 11 years to reach the 1929 level. Then the Government tried to cover its failure by a whole series of subsidies. Mr R. J. G. Boothby (Conservative) said many Conservatives were definitely dissatisfied with the Government's lack of action in the direction of development of the Emoire and of the Crown colonies. The country, wanted leadership and vi=ion in Government. Replying to the debate Mr Neville Chamberlain (Chancellor of the Exchequer) said that in soite of the seasonal drop in employment in January, there were still 700,000 more people employed than three years ago. No alternative policy out forward in this or any other country had produced a comparable result. MINISTER MAY RESIGN SEQUEL TO FIASCO BLAME TAKEN PERSONALLY LONDON, February 14. The "Sun-Herald" news service says that as a sequel to the dole muddle, Mr Oliver Stanley (Minister for Labour) offered to resign. The Prime Minister (Mr Ramsay Mac Donald) refused to accept the resignation but Mr Stanley may again offer to resign when the House of Commons passes the unemployment measures. Mr Stanley admits that he and not the Unemployment Assistance Board was responsible for the fiasco. [D'-rnonstraticns against the new scale of relief payments under the Unemployment Assistance Board occurred last week, the principal one being a riot at Sheffield. The outcome was that the Government ordered the immediate payment of unemployment assistance on the old' scale, and the Unemployment Assistance fTemporary Provisions) Bill was introduced to carry out the assistance. It guarantees at least the same payments to the unemployed as before the passage of the Unemployment Act, 1934.]