SAFEGUARDING DEBATE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20304, 11 July 1929, Page 11

SAFEGUARDING DEBATE.

THE McKENNA DUTIES.

LABOUR CABINET'S POLICY.

ECONOMICS OF THE EMPIRE

PROPOSED CONFERENCE. Australian Press Association—United Service (Iteceivefl July 10, 9.35 p.m.) British Wireless, LONDON, July 10. Mr. Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to the debate in the House of Commons on the Conservative amendment to the Address-in-Rcply, said there was no analogy between the McKenna duties—imposed for a specific purpose during the war—and the safeguarding of industries duties. It was upon that fact that he would base the light of the Government to mako rio announcement as to the date when it proposed to deal with the repeal of the McKenna duties.

As to whether or not those duties would lie repealed in the ne.xt Budget the Opposition would £et no satisfaction. Labour Known to Oppose Duties.

Continuing, Mr. Snowden said there was no justification for th(P Opposition's charge of uncertainly in regard to the McKenna duties. They had been introduced for a special national emergency and Conservative Chancellors had repeatedly emphasised their provisional character.

The Conservatives did not give notice ,of their intention to reimpose the duties after thejr repeal in 1924, but everyone knew that if the Labour Party was returned to power the duties would be repealed. In every constituency where safeguarding operated the protectionist candidate at the election was either beaten or there was a heavy vote against safeguarding. If there was uncertainty in certain industries that could be blamed upon those who had imposed the taxes. Preferential Tariffs Not Favoured. The Government was most anxious to promote the closest trade relations with the Dominions and every part of the Empire, but it did not believe those relations could be placed on the best footing of mutual advantage by a' system of preferential tariffs, least" of all by such proposals as had been put forward with recklessness by Lord Beaverbrook. The late Joseph Chamberlain had stated that there could not be Imperial preference without a tax on food and raw material. To. that policy the Government would never subscribe. He hoped that when he* left office lie would have swept away all food duties, including those on sugar and dried fruits. Preferences on them would naturally go too. Mr. Snowden said lie meant to inquire into the difficulties of sugar-producing in the Colonies and Dominions, but he would not assist them by tariffs. Proposed Economic Conference. " We have no intention of abolishing the Empire Marketing Board," said the Chancellor. "We want prompt and very close commercial relations with every part of the Empire. We have held out the open hand. "We are at present communicating with the Dominions to see if it is possible to hold an Imperial Economic Conference and to sec what we can do to extend inter-Imperial trade. " The development of trade with Australia, New Zealand and Canada must be slow. With India it is different. There the purchasing power of the people has increased owing to the enormous .addition to trade.".

The President of the Board of Trade, Mr. William Graham, referring to the report of the board's safeguarding committee on tho woollen and worsted industry, said the Government did not consider it was called upon to take any action. If the House so desired, an opportunity would be provided for discussing tho report. It would be very easy to prove that the great majority of the members of the trades unions in the area concerned were opposed to the proposal. Valuo ol Empire Trade. Mr. L. S. Amery, ex-Secretary of State for the Dominions, expressed the opinion that Mr. Snowden did not appreciate what the tra'de of tho Empire meant. The Dominions' preference to Britain amounted to £14,000,000, and Britain's preferences to tho Dominions to only £2.000,000. Britain's best purchasers were within the Empire. Ninety-one per cent, of the British exports which went to countries within the Empire were manufactured goods. From the point of view of creating employment Britain could better afford to cut herself off from the whole of the outside world than from the Empire.

Conditions to-day were infinitely more favourable for closer Empire union than over they were before. It might not be possible to secure complete free trade within the Empire, but steps should be taken to bring it nearer when tho disposition to meet Britain half way was stronger than ever. He appealed to the Government to approach the Imperial Conference with a freo hand. Liberals Vote With Labour. Mr. Walter Bunciman (Liberal) said industry as a whole had gained little or nothing from the safeguarding duties. They had complicated industrial machinery and clogged up the warehouses and quays in some of the ports.

It was most surprising that so many Conservatives still thought the volume of trade could bo increased by taxing it. When industry depended oil artificial assistance it was bound, sooner or later, to have a catastrophe.

The only way in which industry could hold its own was by putting its own house in order. Nationalisation would ho far moro effective than any temporary tariff. y They all wanted closer trade within the Empire, but many believed preferences would do more harm than good. If they had to proceed along the lines of taxation as a means of binding the Empire there would be a gloomy outlook for the future. He welcomed the Imperial Conferences. Mr. Runciman added that if European countries had lowered instead of increased their tariffs after the war there -would have been moro prosperity everywhere todaV. Hitherto Britain had never been satisfied with anything less than world trade and it was world trade she wanted to-day. The amendment was negatived by votes to 220. The Liberals voted solidly with the Government. Forty Conservatives did not vote.

The size of the Government's majority after the first division iti the House and the number of Conservatives who did nob vote caused a stir in tho lobbies. ll is learned that a group of younger Conservatives deliberately avoided tho ,'j division as an expression of displeasure at the way in which the leaders of the party handled the debate ahd the divided views they expressed. It was urged that tho Conservative leaders should get together and settle their policy before the next election and in tho meantime not expose their differ- 1 1 ences in public debate. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT NO COMMUNICATION YET. PROPOSED ECONOMIC DISCUSSION Australian Press Association—United Service (Received July 10, 7.5 p.m.) OTTAWA. July 10. The Canadian Government has not received a communication from the British Government asking whether it would be possible to hold an Imperial Economic Conference. This information was obtained to-day in connection with Mr. Snowden's statement about communications being sent to the various Dominions on the subject. BUSINESS CONFERENCE. BRITAIN AND DOMINIONS. Support for suggestion. JjONDON, July 3. The projected Imperial Conference of business men is strongly supported by Sir Robert Home, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who considers that an intimate exchange of the views of the men in Britain and the Dominions and Colonies who conduct the Empire's trade and commerce should produce new ideas which are at present obscured by the communications of Government departments.

Sir llobert suggests the discussion of Empire-wide rationalisation and the extension of amalgamation and co-operative svstems between Britain and overseas.