T.U.C. WARNING ON BUDGET

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26692, 28 March 1952, Page 7

T.U.C. WARNING ON BUDGET

“Will Lend To Heavy Unemployment” (N.XJP.A.—neuter—Cowright) LONDON, March M The leaders of Britain's 8.800,600 trade unionists warned the Government to-day that the new national Budget had killed any hope of holding back the mounting pressure of higher wage demands. They attacked the Budget proposals in an official statement a* “socially inequitable," and forecast that they would eventually lead to heavy unemployment. The general council of the Trade* Union Congress said after th* meeting: “They are irrelevant, or poeitively harmful in the present economic situaation They Represent the abandonment of maintaining economic stability to an extent which, if continued, must eventually mean a return of heavy unemployment.” The T.U.C. said th*t th* ov*r-*U effect of the proposal* regarding incentives was unfavourable (nearly 2,000,000 workers are covered by sliding scale agreement* linked with the con of living). Common* Debate If it were possible for housewives to sue the Government for breach of promise, the damage* would not only upset the balanee of payment*, but would paralyse the whole sterling area, said Mrs Jean Mann (Labour) tn the House of Common*. She was on* of several M.p.'» who sought the annulment of eight new food price orders. It was a “cynieal betrayal of the housewife." by the Government, she said, in not oply raising th* price of certain subsidised foods, but in taking price control off other*. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charle* Hilt) said ip reply that for five months before the Government took office food subsidies were running at the rate m £29,000,000 annually in exeeas of th* £410.000.000 ceiling. “The Labour Government did nothing about it, and the new Government had to find that £20,000,000 in three months," he said. . . „ Mr O. G. Willey, who preceded,,Dr. Hill in office under the Labour, Government. said that the lOd per lb increase in the price of bacon bore mer* directly on the housewife than any . other price increase of a rationed commodity, and it was quite unjustifiable. Dr. Hill said that at th* end of last y«ar the subsidy on bacon after being £3,000,000 in 1945-48. had rfom to £50.000,000. representing a subsidy of ! I* lid per lb on bacon, or 60 por cent. ' of its retail price. To meet the deficit i of £20.000,000 bacon was selected a* one of the foods which there would , have to be a price increase. t ■ 11 ’■