LABOUR CRITICISM

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 122, 16 February 1935, Page 7

LABOUR CRITICISM

Motion of Censure in House of Commons UNEMPLOYMENT ISSUE Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in Reply RESTORED CONFIDENCE By Telegraph.—Press Ason> —Copyright. (Received February 15, 7 p.m.) London, February 14. In the House of Commons, Mr. Geo. Dansbury, moving Labour’s vote of censure, “That the Government by lack of a policy for providing employment for the great and growing number of idle workers, and by misleading tlie House of Commons regarding the unemployment regulations, has forfeited the country’s confidence,” said that despite the Government’s optimism there were now one-third more people who had been unemployed over a year than in 1931.

The figures for pauperism had risen from 369 to 10,000 of the population in 1931 to 452, while outside the poor law and unemployment insurance there was increased unemployment of black-coat-ed workers, which added hundreds of thousands to the total. As there were actually 2,250,000 of unemployed, there was no ground for the Government’s claim to victory over tyiemployment. The Government had failed to recognise that the present economic system had broken down. He criticised the operation of the Unemployment Board, stating that a central bureaucracy had been set up in such haste that neither those who framed it nor those who administered it really understood it.

Mr. J. IV. Cleary (Lab.), the victor of the Wavertree by-election, claimed that he had been returned as an expression of the muss resentment at the Government’s policy toward the unemployed. Charge of Muddling.

Sir Herbert Samuel, Liberal leader, said that the Government had muddled and mishandled’ unemployment relief. Though Mr. Stanley had made a braye retreat, the country felt that the situation should not have arisen.

The turning point in the fortunes of the Government, he said, came with the failure of the World Economic Conference. The President of the United States had nniinied it. but it had been killed by the British Government’s declaration that whatever other country did, we should maintain our quotas and tariffs. Within three years we had lost half of our foreign trade, and at the present late of recovery it would take eleven years to reach the 1929 level. And then the Government b.ad tried to cover its failures by a whole series of subsidies.

Mr. It. J. G. Boothby (C., East Aberdeen), said that many Conservatives were definitely dissatisfied with the Government’s lack of action in the direction of the development of the Empire and Crown Colonies. The country wanted leadership and vision in the Government.

Major 11. L. Nathan (Lib., NorthEast Bethnal Green) said that it was not fear of a General Election which caused the foreign selling of securities in London; it was because in a broadcast talk at Paris on Tuesday it was stated fthat recent speculations in commodities in London would involve Britain in a scandal equal to the Stavisky scandals. Prime Minister’s Speech. The Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, said that it would be better if the ’ Opposition, instead of criticising, would co-operate with die Government in devising a practical scheme 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 industry. Efforts had been made during the last few days to create a feeling of uncertainty, and statements made without a shadow of foundation and apparently more for financial than for political purposes. He cited the continued expansion in the steel trade, and said that 1934 had been the best coal year since 1930. . The negotiations proceeding with* other countries promised further reductions in the number of unemployed. He claimed that the Government’s whole policy, especially its financial policy, had restored confidence, enabling it to launch a scheme which had substantially increased employment. Replying to the debate, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that despite January’s seasonal drop in employment, there were still 700,000 more people employ o ’! than three years ago. No alternative policy put forward in this or any other country bad produced a comparable result.

The censure motion was defeated by 374 votes to 68.