DYESTUFFS ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21258, 12 February 1931, Page 15

DYESTUFFS ACT.

A GOVERNMENT DEFEAT. PEERS’ ACTION, (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, December 19. By 87 votes to 14 the House of Lords ■on Monday night reversed the decision of the House of Commons to allow the Dyestuffs’ Act to lapse on January 14. The amendment proposed that the Act continue for a further period of 12 months to allow time for full inquiry. Viscount Hailsham, who moved _ the amendment, made it plain that the issue was wholly distinct from the tariff controversy, but British dye-makers feared that if ‘the home market were opened now all their hitherto successful efforts to establish a strong industry would be made unavailing by German and American dumping. , , Both Germany and the united States had high tariffs which protected their home markets, said Lord Hailsham. It the British market was turned into an open market in January the first thing that might happen was that there might be a great deal of dumping of American and German products in this country. Socialists said they did not know what dumping meant. He meant by the word the selling in our market of surplus production that was not required for their own hojne market at prices far less than the cost of production in this country, and far less indeed than the cost of production fin the country of manufacture, in order to increase the total production in that way and so reduce the overhead charges and the cost per pound of production. That meant that the subject of attack must sooner or later pass into the foreigners’ hands. . Before the war Turkey red was largely used in this country. It was largely produced in factories set up in this country. The German dye-makers reduced the price to 5d per pound. The result was that; the factories making it here had to give up work* When that object had been attained the German dye-makers then put the price back to 2s 6d per pound. There was another more subtle and even more probable method of attack. Each year there was invented a number of dyes which by the excellence of their colour or quality, had an advantage over dyes previously known. It was quite possible, and. indeed, probable, that the German makers, who were expert in producing these novelties, would sell their novelties on condition that the purchasers took bulk supplies from them of the more ordinary dyes. The result would be that the British dye-makers would lose their market and be largely put out of action. There was no doubt that the textile trades were in a very serious state, that it was not due to any disparity with regard to dyes. The export of undyed textiles in 1929, as compared with 1913, was roughly one-half, while 'it was roughly one-third in the case of fully-dyed goods. That seemed to indicate that it was not a difficulty in connection "‘with dyeing which had caused the disaster. When one remembered that the total cost qi dyes was between 1 and 2 per cem., it was at least unlikely that dyes were responsible.

GOVERNMENT’S VIEW. Lord Parmoor, Lord President of the Council, said that in the view. of the Government the main question involved was as between the dye-makers and the dye-users. The noble viscount had not grappled with the position of the dyeusers. In his {Lord Parmoor’s) opinion there was ample evidence and agreement that if the Act was prolonged it would be to the disadvantage of the great textile industries, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire. It was no answer to say that they must go on bearing these disadvantages based on the arguments wnicii the noble viscount had brought forward. That was the vital factor which had determined the decision of the Government. The noble viscount called it Socialism. He (Lord Parmoor) gloried that it was Socialism —that the decision of the Government was based on social service and social duty to the Lancashire and Yorkshire textile industries ihe Act of 1920 was intended to establish a dye industry in this country. In that it had succeeded. But it was a very drastic measure, going far beyond Protection, it meant the absolute prohibition of the import of dyestuffs into this county except under license. The Earl of Crawford, in supporting the amendment, stressed the importance ot the research work in organic chemistry, which, went hand in hand with dye-making. H “f a am not afraid to hazard the guess that if in 1914 we "had had the highlydeveloped dye works and organic chemistry, industry, university laboratories and workshops that we have to-day we should have brought the war to. an end sooner than we did, so great, so incalculable was. the benefit to the. foreigner of our folly in 1885 in allowing the dyemaking industry to perish. A NARROW ESCAPE. The Commons on the following day discussed the Lords’ proposal _for the continuance of the Dyestuffs Act for another year, and the proposal was defeated only by a majority ot ' (244 to 238). This was a <fr°P , of x £ 4 from the majority of 30 secured by the Government for the expiry of the Act only a fortnight previously. , The debate produced no new arguments. Mr Graham was commendably brief. and merely repeated the case already put forward for allowing the Act to lapse. Ihe dye-makers wanted it continued, the dyeusers wanted j t ended; the dye-users were more numerous And doing uadlj > the dye-makers were less numerous, were doing well, and were quite strong enough to stand without assistance. That was practically the whole of the Government s Cn |l’r Tom Shaw added some heat, but no further illumination. He did, however, make it clear his experts at the War Office regard a strong chemical industry as vital for national defence. The Government has repeatedly been pressed about that, but has never replied before. “If vou want your chemical research, says Mr Shaw, “ pay for- it. Do not do it at the expense of Lancashire, BACK IN THE COMMONS. When the matter came back again to the Commons it attracted a full House; Mr Graham declared .that refusal to submit to the views of the Lords was now impossible after the small majority in theCommons last night, and in view of the fact that delay would lose many valuable Acts. He challenged the action of the Lords “ philosophically in tribulation/ and much more gracefully than some of his followers appeared to 'desire. He, therefore, formally moved that disagreement with the Lords be not insisted npoji. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister applauded a decision which would be unpopular only In foreign countries. If the Government wished to test the feeling of the British electorate on the action of the House of Lords, either on constitutional or industrial grounds, the Unionists would welcome the chance.