BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20303, 10 July 1929, Page 11

BRITISH INDUSTRIES.

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.

LABOUR NOT IN FAVOUR.

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT

POLICY OF GOVERNMENT

(Received July 0, 5.3 p.m.) British Wireless. RUGBY, July 8

The policy of the Government in regard to duties for the safeguarding of industries, the McKcnna duties and analogous imports, was debated in the House of Commons to-day on a motion moved by the ex-President of the Hoard of Trade, Sir Philip Cunliffe Lister.

The mover contended that, since the introduction of safeguarding, trade and employment had considerably improved in the various industries affected. Not only had (he duties had a beneficial effect from the point of view of the building of .British factories and the extension of existing factories, but foreign firms had also been encouraged to erect factories in Britain.

Theso duties had given industry a security which had produced development. That in its turn had increased efficiency. Sir Philip invited the Government to indicate its attitude toward the duties.

Interests of the Dominions. Continuing, Sir Philip said that in view of Britain's increasing trade with the Dominions it would be madness to depart from the late Government's policy of Imperial preference. The Labour Ministry had an opportunity—by continuing preference—of sending the entire Empire a message of encouragement and hope. The real hope of developing exports was bound up with the expansion of trade within the Empire. Thirty thousand additional people had been employed in the motor industry since the McKenna duties were imposed. The employees in the silk trade had increased by 28,000 to 30.000. Even the glove duty had led to 1700 more people being employed. Since the lace duty was imposed employment in that trade had increased by 33 per cent., the output bv 41 per cent., and the wages paid by 59 per cent. The production in Britain of fine chemicals had doubled, and motor-car tyre factories and silk firms had been established since the duties were imposed.

Government's Attitude Explained, « Mr. George Lambert (Liberal) said the country was decisively against safeguarding and protection, as had been again shown at the last general election. The cheapening of transport would do more for inter-Imperial trade than tariffs. lie urged the withdrawal of all Government control from industry.

Mr. William R. Smith, Parliamentary Secretary to the Doard of Trade, said the Prime Minister, Mr. Mat-Donald, had declined to consider the setting-up of a commission to inquire into the effects of safeguarding upon the industries to which it had been already applied. The Government was not prepared to consider the maintenance and extension of safeguarding in conjunction with a judiciously-applied excess profits duty which would secure to the revenue a reasonable share of any existing profits that might accrue to industries as a result of the application of safeguarding.

It was the intention of the Government, in the first instance, to approach the question of importation to t lie British market of goods produced under sweated conditions of labour in foreign countries by way of an international discussion. It was hoped to secure an agreement. No Pledge to Continue the Duties. Mr. William Graham, President of the Board of Trade, said that without in any way reflecting on the sincerity of the advocates of safeguarding the Government could not share their views. It suggested that in the last resort—and it might be at a comparatively early datethat policy would reduce the aggregate volume of commerce and actually add to the ranks of the unemployed. The Labour Party did not regard free trade, or tariff reform, or safeguarding as solutions of industrial problems. Hie McKenna duties were imposed during the war for the specific purpose of safeguarding tonnage—which was a vital and urgent problem—to bring in a certain amount of revenue and to strike a certain blow at luxuries imported into Britain at that time.

The McKenna duties were continued after the war by the Conservatives for frankly protective purposes. 'I he Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Philip Snowdcn, would deal with the problem of the silk duties, the McKenna duties and Budget duties next day. Mr. Graham said he could make no statement in anticipation of the l'inance 13ill of next year. That must lie reserved for the Chancellor of tho Exchequer and the Government. However, with regard to ordinary safeguauling duties the Government, as a party, always had opposed them. It, had given no pledge to allow them to continue when they expired. Radical Reorganisation Urged.

Miss K. Wilkinson (Labour) said she was surprised to see so little reference to in the iron and steel tiadc, which had been strongly advocated before the election. An inquiry into the condition of that industry would go further than the employers desired. • Tbreo-quarters of the blast furnaces in her constituency (Middlesborough) were 25 years old. yet the owners were trying to compete with French, Belgian, German and American works which had been reorganised within the past five years. It was like a man 011 a push-bicycle trying to race a motor-car. Not tariffs, but a radical reorganisation of industry was needed. Industry was ripe for nationalisation.

Mr Thomas Shaw, Secretary of State for War, said the Government would accept no further applications for protective duties under the guise of whatMvas known as (lie "safeguarding White l'aper procedure." No duties under it would be renewed The Ministry reserved the right to propose a remission or a levision of the existing duties in the interests of the. country. That was a plain, clear statement of policy. "I should be delighted," said Mr. Shaw, "if to-morrow the Empire fell into agreement with vis and let us have free trade within the Empire. However, I fear that the idea of Australia and South Africa taking off their protective tariffs is little better than a dream." The debate was adjourned.