LOOSE TALK

Evening Post, Issue 19, 23 July 1934, Page 8

LOOSE TALK

■■ Tho public can understand that, in order to make political capital, some critics of the Government will use language very loosely. One member of the Labour , Party, Mr, Armstrong on Friday declared that the No. 10 building subsidy scheme 'reeked with corruption." Another member, Mr. Semple, while not alleging corruption, declared that the Unemployment Fund subsidies had been used to make the rich richer when the money should have been devoted to feeding wives and children. So far-as Mr. Armstrong's charge is concerned, it was answered in part by Mr. S. G. Smith, who stated that tho Unemployment Board had cancelled the subsidy in a case which was cited, and demanded the return of the money already paid. If Mr. Armstrong knows of. other cases where the evidence is strong enough to warrant action it is his duty to place them before the board. We are sure that the board will not permit such misuse of its funds ,as granting a subsidy on wages which have npt been paid, but it cannot employ an army of inspectors and detectives. The workmen themselves and then- unions should give their assistance. And without definite and unmistakable proof that contractors and workmen have been flagrantly dishonest Mr.-Armstrong's statement that the building subsidy system "reeked with corruption" is a wholly improper and unwarranted libel upon contractors and workers in the building trade. In the attack made by Mr. Semple there was no allegation of illegal or fraudulent action. The charges were simply this: that a subsidy had been offered and rich men and companies had accepted.it. We do not doubt ihat^nany of the recipients of the subsidy could have carried out the work without it. But would they? The situation facing the board was that people would not spend money, principally because they were uncertain of the future. Some inducement was needed, so it was offered in die 4b (farm development) and 10 (building subsidy) schemes. So far as the former scheme was concerned, though the subsidy was substantial the probable return upon the work done was small. Very few farmers would have been disposed to engage labour to bring new 'land into projduction while the returns from produce were so. poor. Indeed, is highly probable that the greater part of the work undertaken under this scheme was made available by farmers from a sense of duty, with very little expectation of a return. Under the . building schemo there was less prospect of the subsidy being misdirected, for the- company or individual had to spend approximately £9 lo earn £1 of subsidy.

This is where uiaiiy of the critics go wrong. They talk as if the money were taken from women and children and given to the rich. There is nothing of the kind. The money all goes to the relief of the workless, and it gathers much more money with it. In building SI is laid out in subsidy and £10 is made available for the workless; under the farm subsidy £1 mokes £2 .available. The only way in which ihe schemes cnn go wrong (apart from fraud which die whole community should -unite in checking) is if subsidy money is paid when tho work would be done immediately without it. This is the point which we have constantly stressed as a reason for keeping such schemes under review. It is not easy to draw the line. A company may have it in mind to erect a £50,000 building or an individual to build a £2000 house, and may put off the project for a year or two, say, till times are brighter. But that is no use to the unemployed. Tho spend' ing is wanted now; and the small subsidy may make all the difference between spending now and spendingwhen it is not so urgently needed. The Minister of Employment himself frankly admitted:"! know that most of our schemes can be abused, and nqth|ng hurls'me more jhaii Lo gee

people using the Unemployment Fund when they could very well do the work themselves." At the same time it is no use offering a subsidy to a man on condition that he spends nine times as much of his own money if he has not got the money. The subsidy, to serve its purpose, must be available to those who have funds. Of course, the principle that public money should bo applied so as to yield private- profit is -wrong for normal times; but the limes are nqt normal. Emergency measures must be applied in an emergency, and the best that the Government and -the Opposition can do is to watch the progress closely so that the maximum benefit is derived, and abuse kept lo the unavoidable minimum.