BRITISH TARIFF

Evening Star, Issue 21036, 25 February 1932, Page 9

BRITISH TARIFF

IMPORT DUTIES BILL STATEMENT BY CHANCELLOR meat’ON FREE LIST. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, February 23. In the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Neville Chamberlain), referring to the free list under the Import Duties Bill, said that the Government’s policy in this connection was founded on expediency. The Government tried to judge each item on its own merits, and proposed to extend the free list to pearls and semiprecious stones. Platinum would be included with gold, silver, and bullion. Esparto grass, which was used for making a certain class of paper, was also being included with woodpulp. As a result of representations it was proposed to include all metallic ores, including concentrates and residues. Copper was not produced within the Empire in sufficient quantity to fulfil the requirements of the British copper manufacturers, therefore raw copper in various forms would be free listed. Mr Chamberlain said that the Government had had difficulty in deciding about maize. It was an important foodstuff, of which we imported £lO,000,000 worth every year, and twothirds of it came from the Argentine. The duty thereon would yield £1,000,000. On the other hand, as it was largely used in the production of pigs, poultry, and cattle it would be hard on the farmer. Furthermore, the Argentine was a country with which it was hoped to make mutual arrangements, and the Government had decided that, on the whole, it would be best to put maize on the free list. Regarding the proposal to omit meat from the free list, he said that he was chiefly concerned about the cost of living. It was at present artificially low, but it must rise. The Government had not given a pledge that it would never, under any circumstances, tax meat, but at present it regarded it as imprudent to do so.

Mr L. M. S. Amery (Con.) said that taxation on meat would yield eight times as much as on maize. The Argentine had no other market for her meat but Britain, a duty of a halfpenny per pound would be borne by the producer, and not by the British consumer. The British Ministers at Ottawa must be free to agree to duties on meat.

Sir Henry Page-Croft said that a duty on meat furnished greater opportunities for satisfactory agreements with the dominions than other products would. In Australia, New Zealand, and the Irish Free State meat and pig products were the uppermost consideration. Taxation of foreign supplies would produce a substantial revenue and would assist in obtaining reciprocity with the Argentine. He asked whether the Government was going to Ottawa empowered to offer preferences on meat products or was the door already closed. Sir Stafford Cripps (Lab.) said that Mr Runciman had given a specific election pledge that meat and wheat would not be taxed.

Mr Chamberlain, winding up the debate, said that the problem of the stock raiser was not easily solved under the Bill, It was difficult to see how to give adequate protection without duties higher than 10 per cent., but the import duty was not the only method. He asked the House to have patience. The cost of living was at present a vulnerable point, and the Government could not afford to take risks. This was not a question of political expediency but of economic considerations. Mr E. J. Ramsden (Con.) sought the information in regard to the suggested transference of sections of the textile industries to the dominions.

Mr Runciman said that the possibility of British industries and Empire industries making arrangements for mutual and beneficial co-operation was under consideration in preparation for the Ottawa Conference.

Mr Ramsden; Has it been suggested that the textile industry should transfer parts of its machinery to the dominions ?

Mr Runciman: No, I am not aware of any official suggestion in that direction, but, any arrangements made between the British textile trade and the dominions would naturally have our blessing,

HEMP AND NEWSPRINT

LONDON, February 24. (Received February 25, at 12.30 p.m.)

In the House of Commons, Mr Neville Chamberlain, in the committee stage of the Import Duties Bill, accepted an amendment to remove hemp from the free list in the interests of sisal production in the East African colonies.

Mr Amery said that the German navy in the Great War used sisal in the interests of East Africa, and Britain ought equally to be prepared to help the group of British colonies and protectorates in Africa, whoso position was serious.

Mr I. J. Albery (Con.), in moving an amendment to remove newsprint from the free list, said the British capacity production in 1931 was 800,000 tons. The imports from the dominions were 200,000 tons, which together exceeded the consumption by 100,000 tons. Britain and the dominions could supply all the requirements. Major Nathan (Lib.) said that though only one-ninth of the British consumption was foreign it was important to retain it as a brake upon prices, seeing that three-quarters of the British production came from mills controlled by Lord Beaverbrook, Lord Rothemiere, and Lord Camrose, whose combines controlled prices. Major Elliott (Financial Secretary to the Treasury), replying, said that many newspaper, proprietors outside the combines viewed the amendment apprehen-

sively. Ho hoped the House would not reverse the second reading decision. The amendment was rejected by 317 votes to 69. TARIFFS AS BARGAINING POWERS LONDON, February 23. In the House of Commons Mr O. Lewis (Con.) asked Mr Thomas v.hether the British representatives at Ottawa would be willing to discuss a preferential duty on meat? Mr Thomas said that the Government would be prepared to discuss any proposal. Sir Henry Page-Croft (Con.) asked: May we definitely understand that the questions of meat and wheat will not be precluded from the discussion? Mr Thomas: It is open to any dominion to submit any proposal. Mr Will Thorne (Lab.): Is it (he Government’s intention to reduce, instead of increasing, tariffs? Mr Thomas: Personally, I support tariffs because I believe as bargaining powers they are the only means of reducing tariffs. WHEAT QUOTA BILL READ A FIRST TIME. LONDON, February 23. , In the House of Commons the Wheat Quota Bill was read a first time. It is entitled: “ A Bill to secure to the growers of home-grown millable wheat a standard price and a market therefor, providing for the imposition on millers and importers of flour an obligation to make payments calculated by the wheat quota. PROVISIONS IN BILL (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 24. (Receiynd February 25, at 11.30 a.m.) The Government’s Wheat Quota Bill, published to-day, aims at providing a secure market and enhanced price for home-grown wheat of a millable quality without subsidy from the Exchequer and without encouraging the extension of wheat cultivation to unsuitable laud. The guaranteed price is to be 45s per quarter of 5041 b. A secure market will be provided by imposing on millers a contingent ebligation to purchase the stocks of home-grown, millable wheat remaining unsold at the end of the cereal year. The Bill sets up a Wheat Commission for the general administration of the scheme, and particularly to decide the quantity of home-grown wheat millers will require, and a flourmillers’ corporation to discharge any obligations imposed on millers respecting unsold wheat. SCOPE OF BILL EXPLAINED LONDON, February 24. , (Received February 25, at 12.35 p.m.) The Ministry of Agriculture, in a statement anent the Quota Bill, explains that the area in wheat in the United Kingdom fell to 1,250,000 acres in 1931, which was the lowest since statistics had been collected. The Bill does not interfere with free importation, so that consumers of bread and poultry-keepers will continue to benefit by cheap supplies, but flour-millers and importers are required to make quota payments into a wheat fund in respect of every hundredweight of flour delivered in the United Kingdom. Millers will not be required v to mill home-grown wheat in every parcel of flour manufactured, but will be left free to buy the wheats they desire. Deficiency payments will be made from a wheat fund controlled by a Wheat Commission, the quota payments by the millers and importers being the greatest when the world price of wheat is at the lowest, so that assistance to wheat growers will be reduced as the world wheat prices rise.