BRITISH BUDGET

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22402, 24 April 1936, Page 15

BRITISH BUDGET

COMMONS DEBATE CRITICS OF GOVERNMENT HIGH COST OF DEFENCE By Telegraph—Press AESociation—Copyright British Wireless RUGBY, April i!2 When the debate on the Budget was resumed in the House of Commons to-day the criticism of the Labour Opposition was voiced by Mr. S. W. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh East). He said that he doubted whether in peace time any Budget statement so staggering in regard to the future outlook had ever been presented. The addition of £30.000,000 in the past year, and £20,000,000 which the Chancellor anticipated for the present year, to the cost that would be incurred for defence was not, in the opinion of the Labour Party, due to circumstances over which the Government had had no control. It was largely due to the wholly ineffective foreign policy the Government bad pursued over a course of years. Mr. Pethick-Lawrence warned the Chancellor that his grave departure from the sound principles of finance, foreshadowed in his admission that he would have to consider meeting the bill for the reorganisation of defence by borrowing, would not pass unchallenged if and when it should arise. For the Liberals, Sir Archibald Sinclair, who reminded the House that £1,000,000,000 had been spent on defence in the last 10 years, said the Government had done much by way of omission to provoke and aggravate the international situation, upon which it now sought to throw the blame for the swelling expenditure and the increased taxation. The House had a right to ask for the disclosure of the whole expenditure involved in the Government's new defence programme. Back bench supporters of the Government generally commended the Budget proposals, and recognised the wisdom and necessity of increasing the income tax to provide for the, defence programme. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. W. S. Morrison, said there had been little substantial criticism of the Budget proposals. Assuming that there was no war or other disaster, they could anticipate the maintenance of cheap money and a continuance of prosperity. The attacks on the Government's foreign policy were really attacks against the League of Nations. It was the problem of defence which gave the Budget its peculiar character. The sacrifices at present demanded were small.

It had been said that the Labour Government had paid the debt to the United States which was not being paid now. It was forgotten that the Labour Government received from Britain's late Allies and Dominions more than it paid out. The debate was adjourned.

FOREIGN POLICY DRIFT TO WAR SEEN LABOUR LEADER'S SPEECH LONDON. April 22 " It is a war Budget," said Major C. R. Attlee, leader of the Labour Party, in a broadcast speech. "It is the natural result of the Government's feeble and dishonest foreign policy which has contributed so largely to the world's drift toward anarchy and war. " Everything is devoted to piling up instruments of death. We can expect in the future no advance of Social legislation. The Labour Party will steadily resist the course which will not bring peace but inevitably will lead to war." GILT-EDGED STOCKS MARKET MOVEMENTS LONDON, April 22 On the London Stock Exchange the Budget chiefly affected gilt-edged securities. Slight falls were registered, but later the markets recovered quickly from the initial declines. Dealers were not disposed to mark down tea shares*