OTTAWA DECISIONS

Northern Advocate, 29 October 1932, Page 9

OTTAWA DECISIONS

BRITISH DELIBERATIONS BILL BEAD SECOND TIME. MISCONCEPTIONS DISPELLED. NO FOREIGN COMPLAINTS. (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Received 9 a.m.) LONDON, October 27. The President of the Board of Trade, Mr Walter Ruueiman, in closing the second reading debate on the Ottawa Agreements Bill in the House of Commons today, said Britain’s recent import duties had had no effect on imports. Not a single European country had made a complaint. The motor trade to New Zealand and India was benefiting considerably. Discussions Avith Australia were proceeding. "Many members haA T e suggested that the OttaAA'a agreements Avould cripple us in trade treaties Avith other countries,” said the Minister, "but instead avc are already negotiating with fi\ 7 c countries. We are ready to treat with the whole Avorld, but we cannot deal \Aith them all at once. "Britain, as a market and centre of finance, is a Avorld port and must remain the most important and \ T ital part of the Empire. Her policy as a creditor country, Avith investments inside and outside, is to cultivate commercial and financial freedom and aetiA’ity, but this is limited by the policy of the rest of the world and the dominions. • We must build on the foundation of the Ottawa agreements the prosperity of the whole Empire." The bill was read a second time by 346 votes to 77. MEAT EXPORT TRADE. S. AMERICA ACTION. THREE STATES COMBINE. (Received 9 a.m.) MONTE yiDEO, October 27.

The Governments of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have agreed to renew negotiations designed to result in joint action in the moat export trade and to present a united front against competition resulting from the Ottawa agreements. WHEAT DUTY. LABOUR AMENDMENTS. HEAVILY REJECTED,

(Received 11.30 a.m.) LONDON, October 28.

In continuation of the second reading debate on the Ottawa Agreement Bill, Mr Tom Williams (Labour, Don Valley) moved to omit from the bili the 2/ duty per quarter on wheat. This, added to the duties on cheese and butter, would mean a real burden on the poor.

Mr Hore-Bolisha, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that the, object of the duty was to ensure a greater supply of Empire products at the expense of foreign goods. It, was hoped that the dominions would, reciprocate by buying more British manufactures. The consumer was amply protected by the provision that the purchases must be on the world price basis. If the dominions were unable to supply at that figure the duties would be removed.

The amendment was rejected by 200 votes to 51.

Dairy Products.

Mr D. R. Grenell (Labour, Glamorgan) moved the omission of the butter, cheese, milk and eggs. He contended that Britain could produce them as cheaply and efficiently as any country. The dominions were already able to compete in the market, and the duty would mean that many poor people would be unable to buy butter. Thy wore already buying less Danish butter and more of the cheaper and inferior dominion produce.

Dr. Burgin, of the Board of Trade, ridiculed the idea of hardship to the poor. On the contrary, he said, the duty would be mutually- beneficial and control the supply, giving the Empire an assured market. The motion was rejected by 197 votes to 39. GLUT OF BUTTER. NEW ZEALAND AND AURTR ALI AN. KILLING HOME MANUFACTURE. (Received 11 a.m.) LONDON, October 25., At a meeting of United Dairies, Ltd., the chairman said that the effect ot tariffs on dairy products had hitherto been negligible. The duties on butter had not influenced the prices, owing to the increase in world production.

The operation of quotas on other importing countries and Empire supplies entering the British market free and largely subsidised appeared to be the real danger. If New Zealand and Australia continued the present rate of increase in dairying for long, they would kill the hon e manufacture of dairy produce, as already they had practically destroyed the, sheep farming industry.