VIEWS ON OTTAWA

Evening Star, Issue 21240, 22 October 1932, Page 13

VIEWS ON OTTAWA

DEBATE IN COMMONS UKMI AND LABOUR CRITICISM Press Association— By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, October 21. (Received October 21, at 8 pan.) Concluding his speech in the House of Commons on Ottawa, Sir John Simon, said: — “ Ottawa only ad<i#J £36,000,000 worth of imports, including £24,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, to the total ot £350,000,000 worth of imports dutiable under the Import Duties Act, yet in return Australia and Canada, who have hitherto practised a higher scale ot protection than we have any idea ot doing have expressed their willingness to reduce their tariffs till our manufacturers are able to compete. The Samuelites played a patriotic and useful part a year ago, and their present defection ■is not understandable. _ Sir John Simpa added that even if he thought the Ottawa agreements were bad he would feel it to be his duty to maintain the National Government. 'Mr Arthur Greenwood (Labour) said that Britain had allowed herself to be blackmailed .by the dominions. At Ottawa Britain had done all the giving and the dominions all the taking. The preferences given to Britain were illusory. Mr L. S. Amery (Con.) pointed out that the United States estimated that preferences would mean the transferof £15,000,000 to £25,000,000 worth of trade every year from them to Britain. Sir Archibald Sinclair (Liberal) said that the Liberals resigned because, when the world needed a lowering and removal of trade barriers, we were putting up new ones. The Ottawa agreements, instead of hipijiiig the Empire, had already created discord, and they were repudiated by the Liberals and the Labourites in Britain and Canada, and by the Australian Opposition. Colonel Wedgwood (Lab.) complained that the Ottawa Conference had become a bargain counter, ruled by Mr Bennett and Mr Bruce, and the British Government had made the worst bargain in the nation’s history. MR BALDWIN REPLIES Mr Baldwin, replying, said that the Government had no desire to cease trading with Russia, but long before Ottawa it was recognised that the treaty was very one-sided. “In theory we received most-favoured-nation treatment, but in practice this was not the case. The Soviet Government simply shut us out as it liked. We told Russia we were ready to make a , new agreement, under which we would have the same power as'the Soviet, and go stop imports directed against our . industries or those of the dominions. Despite hard bargaining at Ottawa, a genuine spirit of co-operation grew up during the conference, and it was now up to British business men to seize the advantage made for them at Ottawa, while the Government could proceed with negotiations with foreign countries. Migration had been mentioned, but it was obvious that nothing could bo done until the dominions were more prosperous. The Budget had been balanced, but the trade of the country was in an appalling condition. The revenue now coining in might be offset by a progressive decrease in income tax and death duties. There was going to be a desperate fight, hut no man supporting the Prime Minister should fall out until the task was completed. RESOLUTIONS CARRIED , The second resolution, imposing duties on wheat, maize, rice, eggs, butter, cheese, fruit, copper, etc., was carried by 452 votes to 85. Thirtyone Samuelites, two Liberal Nationals, and three supporters of Mr Lloyd George voted against the Government, these including Sir Herbert Samuel and Sir Archibald Sinclair (ex-Ministers), Mr Lloyd George, Miss Megan Lloyd George, and Mr Llewellyn Jones. The third resolution, increasing the duty on foreign wines to 4s per gallon, was carried without a division. CANADIAN HOUSE AMENDMENT RULED OUT. OTTAWA, October 20. The amendment to the Imperial Conference resolution concerning the trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, which was read in the House of Commons by the Opposition Leader (Mr Mackenzie King) on Monday, was formally proposed by Mr J. L. Ralston (Lib.) on Thursday, but it was ruled out of order by the Speaker, who found that in some parts the amendment expressed agreement with the treaty, while other parts consisted of an expression of general principles, and could not be regarded as an amendment. LABOUR AMENDMENTS REJECTED LONDON, October 21. (Received October 22, at 10.45 a.in.) In, the House of Commons, on the financial resolution giving effect to the Ottawa agreements, Major Attlee (Labour) moved an amendment making the agreements terminable on six months’ notice. This was defeated by 226 votes to 58. Mr Charles Brown’s (Labour) amendment to omit the paragraph in the Ottawa agreement empowering the Board of Trade to prohibit goods produced and manufactured in foreign countries was defeated by 225 votes to 54.