BRITISH POTTERY DUTY

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1934, Page 14

BRITISH POTTERY DUTY

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —As a member of tho deputation which recently waited on the Minister of Customs in regard to tho duty .on British pottery, 1 was surprised and not a little amused-at the ignorance of his subject displayed by your correspondent, "Fair Play," in your issue of August. 3. As "Fair Play" surmises, the case for the abolition of duty on British earthenware and china was placed before the recent Tariff Commission by 'many witnesses, • including the threo members' of the deputation he criticises. That the case was a strong one and impressed the Commission seems proved by the fact that it is ono of the few items on which tho Commission recommended • a total abolition of' the duty, in tho following words (see Tariff Commission's report, • page 57, item 214): "This is a duty for revenue purposes reimposod in 1931. Tho Commission is of opinion that tlie duty under the British preferential tariff should be abolished as soon as financial conditions permit." "Fair Play," however, is apparently not aware of this.

In your correspondent's own words, he admits tho members, of the Commission to bo "very capable men," and it may bo news to him that the purpose of tho deputation was-not "to belittle the finding and the intelligence" of these gentlemen, nor did it seek any alteration to their reeommcudation. It merely- asked that their ■ recommendation bo given immediate effect to. - "Fair Play" suggests that this country's imports of china and earthenware are, of little ' interest to the British potter, yet the British Pottery Manufacturers' Association, Stokc-on-Trcut, saw fit to appoint the three members of the deputation as their New Zealand advisory committee, and, on learning the Tariff Commission,^ recommendation, sent the following cable: —"Understand Commission's report recommends ultimate removal duty. Wholo trade feeling seriously foreign competition Now Zealand market and exchango .handicap. Makers1 and- workpeople keenly disappointed. Also believe branding country of origin would greatly assist. Please make urgent representation Government these matters."

If your correspondent has any complaint lot him make it before Mr. Coates, who, I am sure, would extend to him the samO cheery' courtesy _he did to tho. nio'tabers "'of; the. deputation, but as . Mr. Coates; insists tliat representation's 'must bo made in the presence of tho Press, "Fair Play" would have to disclose his identity.—l am, etc., . -':■ W. T. BICHAEDS.

Another member of the deputation, John Haine, also points out tha't_ tho Commission recommended the abolition of the duty. Mr. Raine adds:—. "To return to some of tho points which 'Fair Play' states do not bear analysts. ' His first criticism is that it 'surely cannot be assumed that the amount of imports mado from Great Britain into New Zealand could have any material effect on tho unemployment of that industry in the United Kingdom.' Tho obvious reply is that every British pottery manufacturer of any account is represented hero bj\an agent, and doing his utmost to secure some share of our trade. If it is so insignificant as 'Fair Play' makes out, then the English .potters' position must be .all the more acute because of his efforts to supply Now Zealand. While America largely, and European countries entirely, aro supplied by their own manufacturers, Great Britain must depend for her export markets more than ever on India and- her Dominions, : who do not manufacture ddmestie china and, earthenware. It is, however, not only tho pottery industry that is concerned, but the coal industry equally as much, 'as the potteries are proportionately amongst the largest users of coal. Added to the' foregoing there is the question Of much-needed reciprocal freight cargoes from England to New Zealand. While so many ships aro arriving here in ballast, any rearrangement of tariffs that'will restore trade to Britain and give increased shipping is not only'vcry necessary, but a condition precedent to any hoped-for reduction in freight rates ou Now Zealand products. ' , ; . ■' "As to tho argument that the business from a small country and population like that of New Zealand can havo no serious effect/1 upon tho English manufacturer— might not this/absurd retort be used to quash even the Ottawa Agreement, ;uid the whole purpose of tho Tariff Commission? Why; encourage trade with Groat,, Britain .? We can send them all our produce; keep piling up trade balances in London, and show the world the advantages of one-way trade! Buroly wo aro not losing sight of the fact that at the moment the whole purposo of both Ottawa and our resultant tariff revision is to help the British manufacturer (not the foreigner) to. increase his exports to New. Zealand—our- small, .r population and insignificant market notwithstanding. Even 'Fair Play,' though questioning the deputation's statement that cheap foreign pottery is 'flooding this markot,' hints that this market is, at any rate, 'saturated.' To pursue Ms metaphor, saturation and flooding are so closely related that one follows the other. One fact at least is: obvious and beyond contradiction: New Zealand is neither flooded nor saturated with British pottery, and until England gets 'fair play' we will use any opportunity which tho Minister of Customs: affords for statin** our case."