EMPIRE TRADE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 6 October 1936, Page 2

EMPIRE TRADE

BILATERAL AGREEMENTS ADVOCATED SUPPLEMENTING OTTAWA ELIMINATING EXISTING LACK OF COHESION (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, This Day. Suggestions for greater development and cohesion in the economic policies of the United Kingdom and the Dominions were made in remits adopted at the fourteenth Congress of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire in Wellington yesterday. It' ivas urged that while making the Ottawa Agreements more effective by accelerating tariff board procedure, they should be overlaid with further agreements negotiated bilaterally rather than through another Imperial Economic Conference. The discussion was Initiated by Mr M. C. Granville Gibson, M.P. (Association of the British Chambers of Commerce), who moved the following remit: — That this fourteenth Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire, while wholeheartedly supporting the principle of economic co-operation underlying the Ottawa Agreements, urges His Majesty’s Governments, in giving practical effect to that principle, to follow in future the following courses:— 1. To accelerate tariff board procedure with a view to eliminating unnecessary trouble and expense to applicants. 2. While making the existing Ottawa Agreements more effective in the manner indicated above, to overlay them with further agreements negotiated bilaterally, rather than through another Imperial Economic Conference, such bilateral agreements to ensure specific tariff treatment to a selected list of commodities, rather than to advantage to the contracting parties on the application of vague general principles. 3. All future agreements between Empire countries should contain provision for consultation between the Governments concerned as and when it appears to any one of them that an opportunity has occurred for initiating a movement toward a general reduction in world tariffs and the removal of restrictions and barriers to world trade.

Further, this congress recognising: (a) that the practical application of the Ottawa Agreements has disclosed a lack of cohesion in the economic policies of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions; (b) that the time has arrived when the relationship of industry and agriculture must be brought into due perspective if mutual prosperity is to ensue; submits that the ideal to which a policy of Imperial economic co-operation should be directed is that each partner should extend to the others all the advantages which can be offered at a given moment without detriment to the vital requirements of its domestic situation, This policy should provide in particular for:—

1. Ensuring to the United Kingdom the carrying-out of a reasonable agricultural policy.. 2. Affording the Dominions the opportunity to develop, to a reasonable extent, their secondary indus- / tries.

3. Eliminating the imposition of restrictions on the importation into the United Kingdom of Dominion primary products, while foreign countries are permitted "to maintain supplies on a large scale. 4. Maintaining the margins of pre-

ference now provided for in the Ottawa Agreements, subject to such alterations or modifications as may be mutually agreed upon by the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions. 5. Maintaining by the United Kingdom and the Dominions essential foreign markets for the disposal of production which cannot be reciprocally absorbed. 6. Generally bringing about closer co-operation in Empire trade. SQUARE DEAL ASKED FOR Mr Gibson emphasised the need for closer economic co-operation between England and the Dominions, and said that all the Mother Country asked for was a square deal. At least one of the Dominions was not living up to the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement. The people in the Dominions could not expect a free market for their manufactured goods in the United Kingdom while retaining tariffs on goods from the Old Country. There must be reciprocal trading, and not one-sided trading. The people at Home were not at all satisfied with the manner in which the Ottawa; Agreement had been implemented in regard to the hearing of applications. They felt very sore at Canada’s attitude. The Governments of the Empire should consider cases immediately and begin to make new agreements, and not wait until the last minute. Mr F. W. Cook (Dudley) said that there was an urgent need for a clearsighted and well-considered policy of intra-imperial trade. He supported the remit. Mr H. M. Russell (Brisbane) said he was sure that whatever decision the congress arived at, it would have an important bearing on future agreements. “The time has arrived when we should desist from talking platitudes and get down to a concrete basis,” he added. One realised that the first duty of the Home Government was to its own producers, but no restrictions should be placed on Dominion producers if a deficiency existed. RESTRICTION ON DOMINION PRODUCTS Sir Albert Atkey (Association of British Chambers) moved the deletion of the clause urging provision for the elimination of the imposition of restrictions on the importation into the United Kingdom of Dominion primary products, while foreign countries are permitted to maintain supplies on a large scale.

Sir Albert sdid the resolution was the most important one they had to discuss at the present congress. Mr J. Arthur Aiton, C.B.E. (Derby), seconding the amendment, said it semed there was a wrong focus in all this discussion. Britain agreed the Dominions must develop their secondary industries, but one could not in this world get anything for nothing. He hoped Britain’s friends from Australia would look at the position in a reasonable light.

Mr F. H. Cooke (Sydney) moved a further amendment that the clause be retained and read: “Minimising so far as possible the imposition of restrictions on the importation into the United Kingdom of Dominion primary products.” This was accepted by congress. Mr H. W. D. Shallard .Perth) supported the resolution and welcomed the spirit with which the delegates had met the position. BILATERAL AGREEMENTS POSSIBLE Mr Maurice S. Myers .(Dunedin) said that New Zealand had attempted to play its part in implementing tne Ottawa Agreement. Bilateral agreement oelween the constituent parts ol me British Commonwealtn would seem to be a conollary of tne Ottawa Agreement, and there seemed no insuperable difficulty in superimposing bilateral agreements upon the original agreement arrived at at Ottawa, and to that being done to the mutual advantage of the negotiating portions of the Empire. Mr S W. Broadhead (Bradford) supported the resolution. Mr R. M. Clark (Sydney) said he believed Ottawa had done a lot of good. It had not yet achieved all that could be desired, but they could get together again from time to time. Mr W. Machin (Canterbury). advocated bi-lateral agreements ,and said that New Zealand had toed the line laid down at Ottawa. Mr J. T. Martin (Wellington) said that New Zealand was confined to the Home market for three out of four of its main products, and if Britain curtailed the importation of those products it would strike at the economic basis of the whole of the farming community in the Dominion. SPIRIT OF OTTAWA Mr A. G. Lunn (Auckland) said there was a strong feeling that New Zealand had not done all it might to implement the Ottawa Agreement. They should keep absolutely to the spirit of that agreement. They did not want the spirit of economic nationalism in the Empire, “this wretched national spirit which is strangling the world,” he said. The time was coming when they had to realise solid facts. Professor H. Hytten (Sydney) referred to some of the difficulties of Australia, which, he said, had a certain right to establish industries for the purpose of manufacturing its own raw materials. He admitted, however, that they had gone too far in protecting their manufacturers. Great Britain had a right to continue her restrictions, if she so desired, upon agricultural produce, but the Dominions would very much like to see those restrictions minimised. On the other hand, the Dominions also must be reasonable and try to reduce, as far as possible, their tariff barriers. That tariffs were going to be swept away was quite unthinkable. Mr F. H. Leffler (Birmingham) said Birmingham viewed with some concern the development of secondary industries in the Dominions. Many instances arose where at one time they exported commodities to Australia and Zealand. To-day, because of tariff walls and the exchange, they found it practically impossible to get business there.

LOWERING TARIFFS Mr R. L. Barclay (London) said it was easy to get tariffs imposed or raised but singularly difficult to get them diminished. All agreements should have definite time limits, which gave the opportunity of reconsideration when circumstances changed. Viscount Elibank, president of the congress, said a time limit was fixed at Ottawa. ~ . Mr S. IT. Taylor (India) said that the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India, which he represented, were fully in sympathy with the principles underlying the resolution, but lest there should be any misunderstanding he would remind delegates that the Associated Chambers of Commerce of India included all the British and Euronean chambers, but very few of the Indian chambers. The latter had put forward their own point of view. Mr A. Sanders (Southern Rhodesia) said Rhodesia had at this stage no secondary industries and aimed to buy as much as possible from the United Kingdom. SELFISH VESTED INTERESTS Mr J. E. Emlyn-Jones (Newport) said that his objection to Ottawa was that it had stabilised their foreign trade at too low a level. Some day the story of Ottawa would be written, and the glorious vision presented to the congress would be exploded. The amount of bargaining, cheeseparing and pushing for selfish vested interests disclosed at Ottawa did not consolidate the Empire, but came very near to torpedoing it. “We think too much in terms of trade per head of population,” continued Mr Jones. “We shouldn’t be meeting in Wellington if that is the primary concern; we should be meeting in the Channel Islands. Much as I find myself out of harmony with the spirit of the congress, I shall vote against this resolution because I think the principle of Ottawa was bad.” Mr T. Shields (Launceston, Australia) said it was necessary to create an intra-Empire trade spirit among the peoples of the Empire. Unless they could get the spirit among their manufacturers, producers, and consumers little good would result from the resolution. Mr A. Spencer Watts (Sydney) saic! at present Australia spent abroad every penny she could. Mr L. H. E. Bury (Newcastle, Australia) said if the Dominions could not develop their secondary industries they would never develop large populations. While half the population of the United Kingdom was under-nour-ished. Mr Walter Elliott was imposing tariffs. The agricultural policy of Britain was not only against the interests of England herself but was the most disruptive force in the Empire. The motion was carried with only two dissentients. SUPPLEMENTARY REMITS Mr Alfred Bright (Melbourne) moved: — That this congress strongly recommends to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions that, at the time of reviewing the Ottawa trade agreements, they should invite the co-operation of expert advisers,, who should be representative of primary and 'secondary industries and chambers of commerce.

The remit was carried. A further remit from the Melbourne chamber, moved as follows by Mr A. Bright, was carried: —

That this congress, being impressed with the desirability of every unit of the British Empire becoming acquainted at first hand with the problems and difficulties of its fellow members, strongly advocates an interchange of Ministerial visits before the bi-lateral agreements which have been suggested are concluded. TO REMOVE A HANDICAP This morning the first resolution was one moved by Sir Albert Atkey on behalf of the council of the .federa - tion to free the development of Empire trade from the handicap of double taxation occasioned by taxation imposed in certain Empire countries and states upon British non-residents trading through agents. This was carried after a brief discussion. MONETARY POLICY A resolution in regard to monetary policy was moved by Mr J. Arthur Aiton (Derby), also on behalf of the council. This viewed with satisfaction the attempt now being made to stabilise the franc, dollar and pound sterling in relation to each other, and urged His Majesty's Governments to do everything in their power to promote speedy success. Stress was laid on the withdrawal as far as possible of restrictions on financial payments, exchanges and trade. In seconding, ,Mr R. L. Barclay (London) impressed that it was not credit that was the basis of vvealth out wealth that was the basis of credit. They wanted in London to encourage the colonies and lend money, but must make it a condition that they were credit-worthy. s .., Professor T. Hytten (Sydney) d'd not agree that exchange should be stabilised and he moved to add the word “as far as internal conditions will a 1 low.” This had strong support. particularly by Australian and New Zealand delegates, but was eventually lost and the resolution carried by a large majority.