SUBSIDY SCHEMES

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 26, 31 January 1934, Page 8

SUBSIDY SCHEMES

An able defence of the building subsidy scheme is made by the Minister of Employment in the statement published today. Mr. Hamilton docs not deny that tho scheme has its weaknesses, They are obvious. But he does, submit proof that, in spite of these- weaknesses, trades employing a vast amount of labour have been stimulated. The jiiet cost is not excessive. If all the proposed subsidised buildings are erected about £4,000,000 will be spent, in wages. . The subsidy will be approximately £500,000 and £200,000 will come back to the board in wages tax. Thus for £300,000 the early spending of £4,000,000 in wages will be secured. It is impossible to say, how much of this would have been spent without a subsidy. Mr. Hamilton puts forward the only argument that is worth while: that the money was not being spent before the subsidy was offered. Even if it is submitted that the buildings would all have been put in hand in the course of a few years, that does not show the subsidy to be a mistake. The aim was to encourage building now when the work is needed, not to have famine now and a glut later with everybody rushing to catch up arrears of building at once.

Having made ' this statement the Minister will, Aye hope, undertake a further investigation of all other subsidised schemes. Farmers may protest'if the help they now receive in paying labour is cut off, but it must be remembered that the Unemployment Fund is not to help farming or any other industry except as a means of providing work. Building was not aided because that industry had any special claim except that it could afford employment to many workers. Primary industry as a field for employment must be similarly regarded; but where it appears . that the farmer can and will employ labour without a subsidy the subsidy is no longer justifiable.