EMPIRE SUGAR

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 99, 28 April 1932, Page 11

EMPIRE SUGAR

COLONIES AND DOMINIONS

DIFFERENTIATION OF DUTY

LONDON, 26th April. In the House of Commons, Mr. J A. Parkinson (Lab.) moved to amend ' the Budget resolution on sugar to ex-' tend preference to the Dominions as well as to the Colonies. He said that the proposed differentiation -would not make for an Empire happy family. Mr. Ormsby Gore said that the reason why the Dominions had not received the same ' preference as the Colonies was that the House of Commons -was directly responsible : for workers in the Colonies, while Australia and South Africa had large protected home markets. Australia in addition had_ a subsidy. The Government was giving effect to the recommendations of the Labour Committee on sugar-grow-ing in the Colonies. ' ;

Sir Stafford Cripps (Lab.) said that this was only a temporary expedient in the interests of the Colonies. It woulct have been much better to leave the whole matter to the Ottawa Conference. Labour would press for equal preference for the Dominions and Colonies in. the best interests of the Empire as a. whole. ,

Tho amendment was defeated by 254 votes to 41.

Mr. Leopold Ainery (C.) said that the problem was being tackled the wrong way round by a remission of Empire instead of an increase of foreign duty. It would have been better to put a farthing or even a half-penny a pcfund on foreign sugar and given the Dominions and Colonies adequatq preference, paying the way at Ottawa toward creating a favourable sentiment for an Empire-wide resolution being carried. '