THE BRITISH FARMER

Evening Star, Issue 20321, 1 November 1929, Page 9

THE BRITISH FARMER

PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING URGED LAB6BR GOVERNMENT NOT FAVOURABLE (British Official Wirekes.) Pros* Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY, October 80. Sir Edward Iliffe (Con.) called attention in the House of Commons to the dumping of German wheat and other cereals in this country, and moved that immediate steps be taken by the Government to counteract its injurious effect on British agriculture. He said that the German subsidy on wheat was approximately 13s 6d a quarter, and in that way the British farmer would be undersold. The same system was applied to barley and oats, though the amount varied. Apart from the subsidy it was very difficult for _ British farmers to sell in competition with German farmers because of the longer hours of agricultural workers in Germany and the fact that in many districts during the sowing and harvesting seasons women and children laboured in gangs, and were paid at the rate of approximately 3d an hour. Possible solutions 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 tnose particular cereals in this connMr Noel Buxton (Minister of Agriculture), in replying, pointed out that the late Conservative Government, the majority of whose party, as he understood, favoured Protection, frequently declined Protection as a remedy tor the difficulties of British farmers. The present Government could not any more than the late Government impose a countervailing duty to counteract the effect of German dumping, which he agreed was regrettable and most damaging. As for a subsidy to the British corngrower, the subsidy system was defeated in 1921, and the late Government had explicitly- repudiated the policy of a subsidy. lie hoped, however, that conditions would otter 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, Air Buxton said it did so. “It is not a treaty that we want to denounce, or which any Government would denounce ; it is a treaty which is considered of extreme value* Ine uoyernment, like its is entirely opposed to duties on food.” Sir Douglas Newton (Con.), in seconding the motion, said that the Empire was producing far more than the Empire’s needs. Britain s wheat growers led the world, both m yield aD The U morio n was defeated by 266 to 157 votes. as