OTTAWA AGREEMENTS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 53, Issue 14, 27 October 1932, Page 5

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS

REPLY TO LABOUR CRITICS. MIGRATION AND EMPLOYMENT. POSITION OF THE DOMINIONS. A (United Press Association—Copy rigid) (Received This Day, 11.40 a.m.) LONDON, October 26. Moving the second reading of the Ottawa Agreements Bill in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr J. H. Thomas) said that the Opposition’s argument that nothing was done by the agreements to ease the unemployment situation was answered in the steel industry indirectly and in the coal trade directly. He asked the Labour Party to consider tlie future position of unemcipyment unless the Dominions were placed in a position to deal with the problem of migration. If they were put in a position to welcome hundreds of thousands of British people every year something would be done to mitigate the unemployment problem. The British delegates deliberately agreed to the scheme of meat restrictions as a means of increasing wholesale prices. Unless there was such an increase there was no possible hope for producers. Regarding Russia, the British delegates had undertaken that if any nation, by any particular action presented the value of the preference being enjoyed by the Dominions, the necessary steps, would be taken to give effect to the intentions ,of the. British Government. He deplored that the Irish Free State, by her own action., was depriving herself of the benefits of the Ottawa agreements, and he expressed the Government’s hope that this would be only temporary.—British Official Wireless.

RESTORATION OF WORLD TRADE. “A POWERFUL CONTRIBUTION.” / (Received This Day, 11.40 a.m.) LONDON, October 26. Referring to the argument adduced in the Hpuse of Commons during the debate on the Empire Economic Conference that the tariff agreements as reached between the nations of the British Erqpire might impede the conclusion of more general agreements for the restoration ■ / of world trade, “The Times” says: “The commonsense view is that nothing would ever be done to revive trade if it had to wait upon world-wide agreement. A beginning bad to be made, and no better beginning could have been made than that, between tlie members of the British Commonwealth. They cannot, even if they would, be exclusive corporations, but the solid quarter of the population of the world-can make a powerful contribution to the recovery of the whole.” —British Official Wireless.

LABOUR ATTACK IN LORDS.

“UNFAIR AND LOPSIDED.” (Received This Day, 1.0 p.m.) LONDON, October 26. In tjie House .of Lords, Baron Arnold (who was Paymaster-General in the Labour Government) drew attention to the Empire Economic Conference which he described as a supreme failure owing to Canada’s refusal to agree to the progressive liberation of trade within the Empire. A complete breakdown was avoided only by Britain accepting incredibly unfair and lopsided provisions. Viscount Elibank said Lord Arnold has failed to awake to the new era. Free trade as we knew it is fortunately dead. The futui;e issues concern only high oi: lowi tariffs and’ preferences.

Baron Beaverbrook said there were no sacrifices about the agreements at Ottawa which benefit both Britain and the Dominion peoples. He regretted that the agreements did not go further in the direction of free trade within the Empire—an ideal which he was sure would ultimately he realised. He strongly favoured a duty on foreign meat.

Viscount Hailsham (Secretary of State for War), replying, said the agreements signed at Ottawa did not build an edifice, but laid the foundations which would result in better trade within the Empire.

LABOUR MOVES FOR REJECTION. BURDEN OF INDIRECT TAXATION (Received This Day, 1.20 p.m.) LONDON, October 26. In the House of Commons, Mr Lunn (who was Parliamentary Secretary for Dominion Affairs in the Labour Government) moved the rejection of the Ottawa Agreements Bill, on behalf of Labour, on the ground that it would increase the burden of indirect taxation and would do nothing to solve unemployment. He said that the Ottawa agreements would not give work to a single man, but strangled the World Economic Conference beforehand, whereas international co-operation was required. We were setting out on an economic war that might lead to a blood feud, which would destroy civilisation.

ADVANTAGE TO THE COLONIES. (Received This Day, 1.40 p.m.) LONDON, October 26. In the debate on the Ottawa Agreements Bill, in the House of Commons, Sir Philip'Cunliffe Lister (Secretary of Sta te for the Colonies) said that the colonies had reasons for being satisfied with the Ottawa agreement. Hitlieito

they had received preferences only from Britain, Canada and New Zealand; now Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, and Southern Rhodesia also gave them preferences, the colonies reciprocating by giving preferences to all Empire goods. Mr H. Holdworth (Liberal, Bradford) said that nobody in the woollen industry expected increased trade from the Ottawa agreements. Canada had given Bradford a five-foot wall to jump instead of a wall as high as a house. She could jump neither. Mr Holdsworth added that the Canadian tariffs were absolutely prohibitive.