BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20105, 16 November 1928, Page 13

BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

DEBATE ON SAFEGUARDING.

POLICY OF GOVERNMENT.

PROPOSED BILL EXPLAINED. LABOUR AMENDMENT DEFEATED. Australian Press Association—United Service (Received November 15, 6.5 p.m.) British Wireless. LONDON, N»v. 11. The debate on tbo Addrcss-in-Reply to the King's Speech was resumed in the House of Commons to-day. Mr. Philip Snowdcn, the former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved an amendment calling attention to the recently announced policy of the Government Party, which urged that the earliest possible step should he taken to safeguard additional industries, and especially the iron and steel industry, and to tho Prime Minister's declaration that no partial measures, such as an extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, could meet the situation.

Mr. Snowdcn demanded from the Prime Minister a definite statement of what lie meant by his declaration. He recalled that the Prime Minister at Iho general election of 1923 had pronounced in favour of a fundamental chango in the fiscal system. Tho country would not havo protection at that time, and the Prime Minister was defeated. Ho asked the Primo Minister to tell the House the difference between tho policy which he put beforo (he country in 1926 and his new one.

The Secretary of Stale for War, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, on behalf of the Government, said its policy was one of safeguarding, and could not bo mistaken for a policy of protection. A tribunal would be set up by the President of the Board of Trade to consider applications for tho imposition of safeguarding import duties. The Government would not be bound by the advice of the tribunal, but would act on its own responsibility. Duties of the Tribunal. Tho tribunal would have to decido whether foreign goods of tho class or description to which an applicant's industry related were being imported into, and retained for consumption in, this country in substantial quantities, in proportion to the domestic consumption.

Further, it would consider whether employment in this country in tho manufacture of such goods was being, or was likely to be, seriously affected; whether the foreign goods so imported were manufactured in the country of origin under unfair or inferior conditions of labour; whether the British industry concerned would mateijally increase its output; 'whether the applicant's industry was carried out in this country with reasonable efficiency.and economy; whether the imposition of a duty on the cost of the class or description of goods in question would seriously or adversely affect employment, and the cost of production in such industry, including agriculture; whether, having regard to these conditions, the applicant had, in the opinion of tho committee, established his claim for duty, and if so, what rate of duty in tho opinion of the committee would be reasonable and sufficient to countervail tho unfair competition. This tribunal would be a permanent body, instead of a commit tea set up ad hoc, as in tho past. In regard to tho iron and steel industry, Sir Laming recalled that the application by that industry for the appointment of a committee under tho Safeguarding of Industries Act was not. granted in 1925, because many other industries which used iron and steel as their raw material feared that their own industries might be prejudiced by the increased cost of iron and steel Case of Stoel IndusUy. But the steel trade, had now put forward a new case, which showed that the low output capacity was many times the actual output in individual steelworks, and if the output could be brought up to something like the capacity, the reduction in cost would bo very considerable. That was a ease for investigation by the tribunal. The Minister added that the Prime Minister had pledged himself that a general tariff was not a part of the Government's programme, and that had been faithfully fulfilled in this Parliament, and would be equally faithfully fulfilled in the next.

Safeguarding had notably increased employment in the motor industry, which employed 30.000 morn persons than in 1924. It had similarly increased employment iu the silk and musical instruments trade.

General I'age Croft, Conservative member for Bournemouth, said the Government had been elected to extend saleguarding. Since then imports and manufactures had increased sufficiently to give employment to an additional 250.000 persons in Britain. Sir R. A. Sanders. Conservative member for Wells, warned the Government that members from the agricultural areas were not going to support tariffs from which agriculture was directly excluded They viewed the safeguarding of the iron and steel trade suspiciously, and would demand an assurance that prices of farm eis' requisites were not. going to lie inci eased. Reply by Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin, in winding up the debate, said the policies of the European nations since the war had been to increase the tariff barriers. If he were the dictator of the world he would abolish all these obstacles. But ho had to frame a policy in accordance with tho actual conditions.

As a democrat ho had accepted the people's decision in 1923. If t ho country would not give hint the tools lie wanted he must use the tools available If he could not got a shovel ho must use a trowel. Ho fell hack on safeguarding, which was still the Government's policy. The House should not overlook the do clino in emigratyjn sinco the war. Com paring tho last five years with the five years prior to tho war, there wero 750,000 more peoplo in the country than theio would have been if tho pre-war rate of emigration had been maintained. If the Labour Party were returned to power, it would do nothing to -protect British labour. The. Government was eon fidont it would receive the verdict of the country in its policy of safeguarding Mr. Snowden's amendment was rejected by 509 votes to 158, and the Address-in-Reply was carried.