SAFEGUARDING.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19667, 10 July 1929, Page 11

SAFEGUARDING.

LABOUR ATTITUDE. DISCUSSION IN HOUSE. PROTECTION OPPOSED. (iime* omciu. wimliss ) RUGBY, July 8. yhe {Jovernment'e policy towards the gafegoardißg of Industries Duties, the « c Kenna Duties, and analogous import jatiM was dobatP(l in tho House of Commons to-day on the motion raised ly the ei-prosidcnt of tho Board of Trade, Sir Philip Canliffe-Listcr. Uo «06tended that biaco the introduction of safeguarding, trado and employment iti considerably improved in the vanon, industries affected. Sir Philip Cunliffc-Lister declared that not only had the duties had a beneficial .feet from tho point of view of the building of British factories and the „tensiou of existing factories, but foreign firms had also been encouraged to erect factories in this country. These mi», h ° Baid > had given industr y a seeaiity which had produced a development iraieb, i» its turn > nad increased efßcieflejr.He invited the Government to indiMto their attitudq towards these ditttn. gr Philip Ounliffe-Lister said the real bope of developing exports was bound up with the expansion of trade within the Empire. Thirty thousand mlditional people had been employed in the motor industry sinco the McKcnna duties were imposed, while employees in the silk, trade had gone up 28,000 to 80,000. Even tho glove duty had tod to 1700 more people being employed. Since the lace duty, employment had increased by .33 per cent., tho output by 41 per cent., and the wages paid by 59 per cent. British production of tine chemicals had doubled, and motor-car and tyre factories and silk inns had been established since tho duties were imposed. In view of Britain's increasing trade with tho Dominions it would be madness to depart from the late Government's policy of Imperial preference. The Ministry Lad tho opportunity, by continuing preference, of sending a message of encouragement and hope. Mr Gcorgo Lambert (Liberal) said tint tho people were against Safeguarding and Protection, as waa again ahown it tha last election. He said that the eheapening of transport would do more i to Inter-Imperial trade than tariffs, and urged the withdrawal of all Government control from industry. Mr William Smith, Parliamentary Secretary to tho President of the Board of Trade, said that tho Prime Minister hid declined to consider the setting up of a Commission to enquire into tho effects of Safeguarding upon the industries to which it had already been applied, and aaid that tho Government were not prepared to consider the maintenance and extension of Safeguarding in conjunction with a judiciously apJM excess profits duty, which would lecuro to the revenue a reasonable ihare of any existing profits which night accrue to the industries as a remit of the application of Safeguarding. It was the intention of the Govern*J|fc, in the first instance, to approach tW question of importation on the British market of goods produced under mated conditions of labour in foreign countries, by way of an international discussion, and it was hoped to get an agreement. Mr William Graham, President of the Board of* Trade, said that, without in any way reflecting on their sincerity, thij Government were unablo to sharo tlia views of the advocates of Safeguarding-. They suggested that, in the last resort, and it might be at a comparatively early date, the policy would rudueo tho aggregate volume of corn■are« and actually add to the ranks tt those who were out of work. The labour Party did not regard Free Trade, nr tariff reform, or Safeguarding as a inlntion of industrial problems. The McKenna Duties were imposed during (he war for specific purposos; to safeguard tonnage, which was a vital and , wgrot problem; to bring in a certain ; mount of revenue; and to strike a cert»b blow at luxuries imported into this wintry during that time. Those duties tors continued after the war by the | Conservatives for frankly protective jnrpos.es. The Chancellor of the Ex*<[iier, Mr Philip Snowden, would totwirrew deal with the problem of the MeKenna Duties, taking the silk duties, MeSwaa Duties and Budget duties. He *«M. make no statement in anticipation of the Finance Bill of next year. Tilt oust be reserved for the ChancelW of the Exchequer and the Government, but with regard to the ordinary Safeguarding Duties, the Government »i a Party had always opposed those duties. They had given no pledge to *tl<m them to continue when they have npired. Ministerial eireles consider that the Board of Trade Committee's recommen<tot!on Is too vague and unqualified to JMtify action on it.

Uadiag industrialist* express the •pinion that the rejection of the reswtwmld moan a wage cut. Mr Syda*y llagworth, chairman of the Joint MijPttfiittg Committee of Employers *"(! Operatives, said that even a 15 per «8t Aaty would not be sufficiently high »'tt« nothing was replacing Safeguardl*9- The industry would continue to suf--I' r, aad workers would continue to bo Unemployed. Mr Walter Andrews, ox-President of "« Britiah Wool Federation, said that ,a ?' My below '2o per cent, would not *»<*% have been effective. They should * f»Ued to fall back on free trade as •a alternative to lower wages. v * r Arthur Shaw, secretary of tho Clonal Association of Textile Unions, lull. 0 ' tbe °P inioi » * hat als P er e * nt 2« *»uld enable manufacturers to get ■**'«> meaaureable distance of foreign ••Mitioa.— Australian Press AssoeiaH United Service. Jk* i E. Wilkinson (Labour) stated ™« she was surprised to see so little "wrenea to Safeguarding in the iron ?? ''eel trades, which had been *™»Kly advocated before the election. fynqmry into the condition of that «tistrv would go further than the desired. Three-quarters of *«• ( furnaces in Middlesbrough "« -o year* old, ret thev were trying with French. Belgian. GerJ™. and American works which had JJ? '•organised within the past Bve 'C? 9 - ft was like a "push" bicycle %LJ°^ ~oe «™?*<>™ar .Not tary* l »ut the radical reorganisation of J««tn-, wag needed. Industry was "S '<jr nationalisation. *r r Tom Bha » (Labour! stated that »kr wnment ™rold accept no fur4tL a PP"«itions for protective jjT" »» Rafegtinrdine. White Paper *(XT e ' not the <*"*« "™ l<,r >*• *»r>S 4u re l« The Ministrv rethe richt to propose tho remis- % i»* rev,ls, '«n of existing duti*" in **« L T F - Sts nf th * oonntrv. That "! .1 ,"' c ' e * r statement of policv V*Wi *** *»"'«hted if to-morrow M iJPW* f«n into »er*ement with ns *» «■ few* Ftm Trad* wititim tb»

Empire, but I fear that the idea of Australia and South Africa taking off their protective tariffs is little better than a dream,'' he said. The debate was adjourned.—Australian Press Association.

I BRITISH WOOLLEN INDUSTRY. SAFEGUARDING FAVOURED. LONDON, July 8. The Board of Trade Committee which was set up to enquire into the position of the woollen industry and to consider the question of the imposition of a tax, under the Safeguarding Act on imported articles, reports in favour of duty, and says: — "We aro satisfied that foreign women's dress go3ds are being imported into the United Kingdom in abnormal quantities, and are being offered for sale at prices below those at which, similar goods can profitably be manufactured in the United Kingdom, thus seriously affecting employment. The committee, however, thinks that the duty should be graduated according to a suitable scale, rising from 6d a case for the cheapest garments, of which the import value is 10s or under, to a maximum of 3s 6d a easo for garments valued at £.4. The above scale should be equally applicable to men's year."—Australian Press Association. REPARATIONS CONFERENCE. LONDON, July 8. It is learned that the Dominions will be represented by their own delegates at the international conference at which the Young Plan for the Settlement of Keparations and Ehineland evacuation will be considered. —Australian Press Association.