OTTAWA TRADE PACTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21332, 5 November 1932, Page 11

OTTAWA TRADE PACTS

' COMMONS DEBATE THIRD READING CARRIED EMPIRE'S OPPORTUNITY LIBERALS' COMPLAINT TALK OE TIED HANDS By Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright (Received November 4. 5.45 p.m.) LONDON. Nov. 3 The Ottawa Agreements Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons this evening bv 416 votes to 68. jn moving the third reading the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. L. Hore-Belisha described the measure as a superstructure founded on the Imports Duties Act and }hc fulfilment of the electoral mandate to restore the adverse balance of trade. In principle the Empire now had abandoned protection and in future there was to be free competitive opportunity for all sections of the Empire. The Ottawa agreements had-been negotiated, not by politicians alone, but by representatives of trades, including agriculture. The opportunity given within the framework of the agreements for consumers and producers to come together was more important than the actual agreements. Labour and Liberal Critics Mr. Morgan Jpnes (Labour— Caerphilly Glamorgan)' moved the rejection of the motion. He said that under the cloak of a national mandate the Government had presented a measure embodying the policy "the Conservatives had advocated for 50 years. It was a hazardous experiment. It would tie Britain's hands at the coming World Economic Conference and would endanger her trade with Russia. Sir Herbert Samuel (ex-Liberal member of the Cabinet) Parliament had not been permitted to alter a single word in the- bill. Seven members of the Ministry went to Ottawa and-returned with a new decalogue on tables of stone, of which it was impious to alter a single jot or tittle. . . There had been no examination of Ottawa's new duties by.the Import Duties Advisory Committee or anyone else. The house had been told that it must carry them unaltered. ; It might be claimed that Britain could ■not make agreements with the Dominions and reserve their consideration for some other authority, but that was precisely what was happening/in Australia. There were no particular duties in the Australian agreement because the Commonwealth Government had given a pledge that the Federal Parliament should make no tariff alterations without the recommendation. of the Tariff Board. Why was this possible in Australia and not in Britain ? •/ Dominions Must' Approve Changes Sir Herbert said' the legislation was so . framed that it would require the consent of/the House of Lotds for alteration of orders under it. Therefore it might lead to a serious clash between the two Houses under a Liberal or a Labour Government and cause two years' delay under the Parliament Act. The Liberals' objections to the agreements were justified by the vehement controversies taking place in Canada and Australia. The Liberals especially objected to the provision that the duties should not bei reduced without the consent of the Dominions. Such a provision was unprecedented in the history of Parliament. The chairman of Committees had ruled that the schedules no statutory validity and were only included in the bill for convenience. This was the cause of surprise both in Britain and the Dominions. Mr. Chamberlain Replies The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in replying, said all j Governments coming into power found agreements and conventions, but they had lo await fixed periods before they could vary them. It was/ true that Parliament, if it chose, could lower the duties, but it was extremely unlikely that it should want to do so. Referring to meat Mr. Chamberlain said confusion had been caused by the use of the term "quota." The problem of the fall in prices due tyo unregulated supplies had become intense in recent years. He believed it was possible for producers to make voluntary agreements among themselves and avoid alternate gluts and shortages, with the Government merely acting as policeman or umpire to see that the agreement was carried out. It was not, suggested that the Ottawa agreements would solve the unemployment problem, but the Government did claim that they provided new opportunities for trade over a wide field and smoothed the way toward a wider agreement among the nations of the world. AUSTRALIA'S TREATY ATTACK IN PARLIAMENT COUNTRY MEMBER'S CRITICISM (Received November t. 5.5 p.m.) CANBERRA, Nov. 4 The Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, the House of Representatives, replying to the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. J. H. Scullin, 7 charged him with aiming at the complete destruction of Ottawa agreement. Mr. H. V. Thorhy (Country Party), formerly Minister of Agriculture in New Soillh Wales, attacked Article NIL in the agreements. He said : " We are close the point where the functions of Parliament will be handed over to an outside body. This agreement is a declaration of war by tlie British Empire countries on the trade of foreign countries an d I cannot how the primary producers are going try'benefit from such a *'gid agreement." -Ihe debate was adjourned. AGREEMENT RATIFIED / CANADIAN LOWER HOUSE (Received November 4, 6.35 p.m.) OTTAWA. Nov. 3 The. Canadian House of Commons ratified t'ne Ottawa agreement bv 128 votes to «0. All the Conservatives, one Liberal and Sl - X Progressives voted with the Government. The minority comprised the remaining liberals, two Independents and four Labour members.