UNEMPLOYMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 February 1921, Page 5

UNEMPLOYMENT.

SERIOUS IN BRITAIN. WORSE SINCE DECEMBER. DEE. TE IN THE COMMONS. By Telegraph.—Press Assn—Copyright. London, Feb. 16. In the House of Commons, Mr. J. R. dynes (chairman of the Parliamentary Labor Party), moving an amendment to the Address-in-Reply, regretting that the King’s Speech did not recognise the right of the genuine unemployed to work or adequate maintenance, said that the gravity of the situation was staggering. Unemployment was worse than in December, and Parliament was faced with a declaration that, terrible as things were, nothing could be done by legislation to make them better. This was the most callous cancellation gof solemn pledges. The Labor demand was for work or adequate maintenance. The hint that there was to be some extension of national insurance was insufficient. The situation was so serious that it could not be dealt with properly by means of insurance alone. Mr. Clynes declared that the Labor Party was in favor of refusing doles to either men or women who refused to do appropriate work when provided. The party did not support shirkers. In ’ view of the failure of employers to find remunerative productive work, it was the duty of the Government to do so. Dr. MacNamara (Minister for Labor) stated that, although it was necessary to alleviate the hardships arising from unemployment, the Government also had the far-reaching duty of re-establish-ing British industry, and thus bringing about permanent prosperity. The Government’s policy had been to see that relief work was useful and productive. A scheme costing 10£ millions, in connection with roads, was now giving employment to 35,000 extra men. The scheme of the Ministry of Health in connection with laying out building sites at a cost of five millions was employing others. Altogether productive schemes were finding employment for 70.000 men.

Referring to the amendment of the Unemploymetit Act, Dr. MacNamara said the contribution would be raised from lOd to Is l%d, the employer and employee paying an extra penny, ■'•■nd the Government the balance. Men’s unemployment benefit should be increased froqi 15s to 18s, women receiving 15s, boys 9s, girls 7s 6d. ex-service men continuing to receive 20s. Dr. MacNamara said that unemployed ex-service men received £1 weekly. The refusal of the building trade unions to absorb 50,000 men was costing the country £50,000 a week. The later speakers were largely Labor members. Mr. Barnes, in a solid cross bench speech, criticised Mr. Cl yne’s reference to Russia, saying Labor was hugging a delusion if it thought anything could be got out of the resumption of trade with Russia. He asked Mr. Clynes to be more explicit regarding the workers’ right to adequate maintenance. It was essential not to lessen the incentive to work. Something might be done by the State making advances to employers who would willingly keep on workmen if they were assisted over the temporary difficulty. Mr. Barnes stated that during 1920 27 million days’ labor were lost owing to strikes. Most of the trouble was due to the workers’ mistrust.

Mr. Hartshorn drew attention to the growing unemployment in the mining industry, urging that when the Government was arranging the reparations agreement with Germany it should remember the way in which the workers were affected. Mr. G. Roberts said that they would never get unemployment within manageable limits until they resumed trade with foreign markets. This was impossible until the employers and workmen were got together in an atmosphere of goodwill. The debate was adjourned. Received Feb. 18, 11.35 p.m. London, Feb 17.

In the House of Commons, Sir Donald McLean (Liberal) resumed the debate on unemployment. He said the unemployed must be maintained, not merely maintained at the merest margin of existence. The Government’s increase of the unemployed benefit was not enough, and the country would have to pay a bigger amount by reducing expenditure in Mesopotamia, Persia, ftnd elsewhere. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.