THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 1921. ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18322, 12 August 1921, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 1921. ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION.

It was only to be expected that the Safeguarding of Industries Bill, broadly referred to as the Anti-Dumping Bill, would not have a smooth passage in the House of Commons. The controversy over the merit of its provisions is still raging. A three-days' debate in the House, in May upon the financial resolutions upon which the measure is founded revealed an extreme diversity of opinion, reflecting the views of various interests ns to the probable effect of the proposed legislation. The war showed that the absence of certain key industries endangered the industrial constitution of the nation and even threatened its naval and military emciency. The question has arisen whether such industries are now to be left to the chances of an unfettered market. The first of the two resolutions framed by the Government was designed to safeguard the industries during the next five years and to give them time to become firmly established. The purpose of the second resolution was to check dumping, whether dumping be an attempt df foreign competitive groups to destroy a British industry by underselling at artificially low prices or the result of collapsed exchanges. The safeguard or the check is to be provided where deemed necessary by the imposition of a tariff of 33 1-3 per cent. It is claimed on behalf of the Government that it has shown due caution in selecting industries for protection, and the list of key industries scheduled in this relation seems to bear out the contention; but a provision of the Bill which has reasonably aroused much discussion gives the Board of Trade power to add to the list. As to the attempt to legislate against the sale of imported goods in Great Britain at prices which, on account of collapsed exchanges, are below the cost of British production, the issues involved would seem to present oven greater difficulty. The point is raised as to whether a duty of 33 1-3 per cent, would be effective in the case of countries where the currency is most depreciated, as to where finality is to bo discerned since there can be no guarantee that the present relations between the pound sterling and foreign currencies will continue, and as to whether the provision in question will not do more harm than good by actually impeding the restoration of the collapsed exchanges of Europe. The Safeguarding of Industries Bill was, of course, bound to provoke a vigorous wrangle between Freetraders and Protectionists. Lord Inchcape, as an uncompromising Free-trade opponent of the Government's proposals, describes the measure as a fantastic, unworkable farce, declaring that if it be passed Great Britain will be "finished" so far as the industries upon which she is living are concerned. Sir Alfred Mond, on the other hand, has found no difficulty in reconciling with a most lucid and reasonable exposition of the case for Free-trade a warm advocacy of the Government's proposals as a necessary step in existing circumstances. It is true that his definition of the circumstances seems to lend itself to argument on either side, seeing that he declared in the House of Commons that "we are in an economic world such as no one has ever conceived—a kind of business Bedlam—a position in which no manufacturer knows what his production is, or is likely to or knows where or when he can sell his goods, or what prices he will receive for them." It is not very surprising to find the Economist, staunch to its principles, refusing? €b find a redeeming feature in the Bill. It observes: "As everyone knows, this country can only maintain its present population in reasonable comfort by doing a great,, export trade to pay for the food and raw materials tliat it needs. Debauched by war's artificial prosperity, our manufacturers and their workmen now demand a scale of profit and wage, in return for diminished effort, that the rest of the world cannot and will not pay, and have to be taught by competition the hard fact that they cannot have it, because the export trade of the world will go to those who turn out the best articles at the best price. The Government proposes to bolster them up behind this tariff wall and so to prevent their learning the lesson which is essential to our survival as a great and wealthy nation." Cogent as this view may bo, the main point that it seems necessary to bear in mind is that the justification for the Government's proposals is based upon the pressure of economic emergency. As Tho Times observes, the country is not asked to give a decision on the abstract merits of Protection and Free-trade, but to face the practical problem of evolving measures to safeguard its interests during an abnormal time. In normal circumstances such a Safeguarding of Industries Bill would deserve tho worst that could be said about it. As a measure framed, however, not in antagonism to established principles but in deference to the dictates of expediency, it wears a different complexion, though respecting its

actual remedial merits there is little temptation to express an opinion. Evidently the French Government Is not quite pleased with the British Government’s proposals, but is not in any satisfactory position to protest seeing that it has itself introduced an increased tariff with a view to safeguarding French industries against countries whose exchanges are depreciated.