IN THE COMMONS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 268, 27 October 1932, Page 7

IN THE COMMONS

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS DEBATE ON THE BILL. THE MEAT RESTRICTIONS. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 27, 12.30 p.m.) Rugby, Oct. 26. Moving the second reading of the Ottawa Agreements Bill in the House of Commons, the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas said that the Opposition argument that nothing was done by the agreements to ease the unemployment situation was answered in the steel industry indirectly and in the coal trade directly. He asked the Labour Party to consider the future position of unemployment unless the dominions were placed in a position to deal with the problem of migration. If they were put in a position to welcome hundreds of thousands of British people every year something would have been done to mitigate the unemployment problem. The British delegates deliberately agreed to the scheme of meat restrictions as a means of increasing wholesale prices. Unless there was such an increase there was no possible hope for producers. Regarding Russia he said that the British delegates had undertaken that if any nation by any particular action prevented the value of the preference being enjoyed by the dominions the necessary steps would be taken to give effect to the intention of the British Government. He deplored the fact that the Irish Free State, by her own action, was depriving herself of the benefits of the Ottawa agreements, and expressed the Government’s hope that this would only be temporary. Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister said that the colonies had reasons for satisfaction at Ottawa. Hitherto they had received preferences only from Britain, Canada and New Zealand; now Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland, India, and Southern Rhodesia would also give the colonies preferences and the colonies were reciprocating by giving preferences to all Empire goods. Mr Holdsworth said that nobody in the woollen industry expected increaesd trade from the Ottawa agreements. Canada had given Bradford a five-foot wall to jump instead of a wall high as a house, but she could jump neither. MOVE FOR REJECTION, (Received 27, 1.20 p.m.) London, Oct. 26. In the House of Commons Mr Lunn moved the rejection of the Ottawa Agreements Bill on behalf of Labour on the ground that it increased the burden of indirect taxation and would do nothing to solve unemployment. The Ottawa agreements not only would not give work to a single man, but strangled the World Economic Conference beforehand, whereas international co-operation was required. “We are,” he said, “setting out on an economic war which may lead to a blood feud which would destroy civilisation.” T.U.C. OPPOSES AGREEMENTS. (United Frees Association—By CableCopyright.) (Received 27, 10.30 a.m.) London, Oct. 26. The Trade Union ’Council passed a resolution opposing the Ottawa agreements. WORLD TRADE RECOVERY. THE OTTAWA BEGINNING. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 27, 12.30 p.m.) Rugby, Oct. 26. Referring to the argument adduced during the debate on the Ottawa Conference that the tariff agreements there reached between the nations of the British Empire might impede the conclusion of more general agreements for the restoration of world trade, “The Times” says: “The commonsense view is that nothing would ever be done to revive trade if it was to wait upon world-wide agreement. A beginning had to be made, and no better beginning could be made than between members of the British Commonwealth. They cannot even, if they would, be an exclusive corporation, but a solid quarter of the population of the world can make a powerful contribution to the recovery of the whole.”