ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21988, 24 June 1933, Page 15

ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT

TARIFFS LOWERED BLOW TO SMALL INDUSTRIES CRITICISM IN THE HOUSE. (From Och Own Correspondent.) LONDON, May 12. The National Government were subjected to severe criticism when the AngloGerman Trade Agreement was discussed in the House of Commons. Sir Austen Chamberlain, leading the revolt, spoke for industrial Birmingham, many of whose products are, by the AngloGerman agreement, to have their protective tariffs lowered in return for the increased quota of British coal which Germany is willing to accept. Mr Runciman told the House that when Germany in April of last year lowered the quota on British coal imports to 100,000 tons a month, the Government protested, and reminded the German Government that, under the Commercial Treaty of 1924, this country had the right to demand arbitration. The Government, however, decided, that arbitration might last a year, and entered, into direct discussion with Germany. Result: quota on British coal imports to Germany-raised to 180,000 tons a month, and tariffs against all countries on jewellery, razor blades, musical instruments, clocks, certain chemicals, and other commodities lowered. Sir Austen Chamberlain moved to report progress, so that the operation of the agreement should be postponed till the Government had considered the case of the industries “ sacrificed" to,obtain the concession in coal in consultation with their representatives. Thereafter, coal was put on one side and the' House heard' pleas for clocks and toys, hollow-ware and chemicals, till late in the evening coal came up again. When the advantage gained for the coal industry was considerable, whether it was all that good bar-, gaining could have got—with such questions as these most speakers did not concern themselves. Their theme was the damage which would be inflicted bn other industries. ’ ; ; BAD EFFECTS ON TRADE. Sir Austen complained of the hard case of the British producer, who could never obtain the protection of a duty without an elaborate process, but now found that the duty could be removed at a stroke. He pointed but with emphasis and power the bad effects on trade and the development of trade, and pleaded with the Government to take time for further consideration. . - To Mr Amery ho success in tariff negotiations seemed likely while they had at the head of the Board of Trade “ someone who knows nothing about tariffs.” The Secretary for Mines (Mr -Ernest Brown), made a vehement defence of the coal provisions. He condemned the communique of the mining association as hasty, not considered, and misleading. He. declared that the net effect of the agreement would be a net addition of 1,000,000 tons a year to our coal exports to Germany.'- 1 . ; ' ' ', MR RUNQIMAN'S , REPLY. • Mr Runciman’s reply made no concessions and no apologies. He was sympathetic to the ..appeal for the industries which have to make a sacrifice, but invincibly firm. On the question of coal he maintained that, no better bargain could have made. . “ I have made a good bargain.‘ If you do not like it, get someone else,” he gave challenge for himself. On behalf of the Government he demanded rather than asked for support of the agreement as one part of a large national policy which must stand or fall with it. Upon the main substance of Sir. Austin Chamberlain's opposition, the appeal for consultation with the trades affected, he made a firm, practical reply. It was the business, of the trade associations to put the case for their members and not consent to any sacrifice. He had in his own official experience proved f the impossibility of inducing them to do so. But in bargaining with other nations concessions and sacrifices must be made. How to strike the balance and who should bear the burden must be for the Government to decide. His bold and challenging conclusion was loudly cheered, and be had his reward, first, in the majority of 269 to 80, then on the main question, the “revolt” dwindling to exiguous proper-, tions, with 285 to 33. THE TOY TRADE. A resolution sent to Mr Runciman by the British Toy Manufacturers’ Association expresses strong resentment at the remission of the duties-on toys without discussion with the trade’e representatives. and asks that further time should be given for investigation into the effects of the reduction. \

In a letter forwarding the resolution the association declares: — The reduction of the tariffs upon imported German toys aims s savage blow at the British toy manufacturing industry, which, in the light of previous assurances given by your department constitutes, in the opinion of the members of this association, no less than an outrage. : . ■ ■ j As you will see, this trade has been constantly urged by your department to establish the toy industry in this country, And now that same department lias seen fit to choose this industry as one of those to be sacrificed. My members realise that it is useless to. recapitulate the various arguments advanced in the House of Commons against this agreement; nor can they expect that, as you are responsible for these negotiations, many of them will appeal to you. They do, however, feel that in view of the assurances given by your department, and the financial obligations and responsibilities entered into by them upon such understanding, they are justified in their insistent demand that immediate steps be taken to withdraw toys from the list covered by the German agreement.