DUMPING OF WHEAT

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 32, 1 November 1929, Page 11

DUMPING OF WHEAT

BRITISH FARMERS UNDERSOLD SUGGESTED DUTY OR SUBSIDY PROPOSAL OPPOSED BY HOUSE OF COMMONS (British Official Wireless.) (Received October 31, 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, October 30. Sir Edward Iliffo called attention in the House of Commons to the dumping of German wheat and other cereals in this country, and moved that immediate steps bo taken by the Government to counteract the injurious effect on British agriculture. Sir Edward said that the German subsidy on wheat was approximately 13s. 6d. per quarter, and in that way the British farmer could be undersold. The same system applied to barley and oats, though the amount varied. Apart from the subsidy it was very difficult for British farmers to '.ell in competition with German farmers, because of the longer hours of agricultural workers in Germany, and the fact that in many districts during sowing and harvesting seasons women and children laboured in gangs and were paid at a rate of approximately 3d. an hour. Possible solutions, Sir Edward said, were to put a duty on all bounty-fed cereals coming from abroad, except those from the British Empire, or to subsidise the growing of those particular cereals in this country. Mr. N. Buxton, Minister of Agriculture, replying, pointed out that the late Conservative Government, a majority of whose party, as he understood, favoured protection, had frequently declined protection as a remedy for the British farmers’ difficulties. The present Government could no more than th late Government impose a countervailing duty to counteract the effect of the German dumping, which he agreed was regrettable and most damaging. As for a subsidy to the British corn-grower, the subsidy system was repealed in 1921 and the late Government had explicitly repudiated the policy of a subsidy. He hoped, however, that conditions would offer an opportunity for action on non-party lines, to which all could agree without abating a jot of their principles. Replying to the argument that the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty did not preclude a countervailing duty, Mr. Buxton said it did so. “It is not the Treaty we want to denounce, or which any Government would denounce. It is a treaty which is considered of extreme value. The Government, like its predecessors, was entirely opposed to duties on food.” Sir Edward Iliffe’s motion was negatived by 266 votes to 157.