BRITISH DUTIES

Southland Times, Issue 21856, 5 November 1932, Page 5

BRITISH DUTIES

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS SIR HERBERT SAMUEL’S CRITICISM THIRD READING OF BILL (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) (Rec, 5.5 p.m.) London, November 3. In the House of Commons Mr L. Hore-Bclisha, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in moving the third reading described the Ottawa Agreements Bill as a superstructure founded on the Imports Duties Act and the fulfilment of the electoral mandate to restore the adverse balance of trade. In principle the Empire had now abandoned protection. In future there was to be free competitive opportunity for all sections of the Empire. The Ottawa agreements were 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. Mr Morgan Jones (Labour) in moving the rejection of the Bill said that under the cloak of a national mandate the Government presented a measure embodying the policy the Tories advocated for thirty years. It was a hazardous experiment to tie our hands before the World Conference and endanger our trade with Russia. Sir Herbert Samuel said that Parliament had not been permitted to alter a single word of the Bill. Seven Cabinet members went to Ottawa and returned with a new decalogue on tablets of stone, regarding which it was impious to alter a single jot or tittle. “There has been no examination of Ottawa’s new duties by the Import Duties Advisory Committee or anyone else,” he said. “The House has been told it must carry them unaltered. It might be claimed that we could not make agreements with the dominions and reserve their consideration for some other authority, but that is precisely what is happening in Australia. There are no particular duties in the Australian agreement because the Commonwealth Government has given a pledge to the Federal Parliament that there should be no tariff alterations without the recommendations of the Tariff Board. Why is this possible in Australia and not in Britain?’ Sir Herbert Samuel said the legislation was so framed that it would require the House of Lords’ consent to an alteration of the orders under it. Thus it might lead to a serious clash between the Houses under a Liberal or Labour Government and cause two years’ delay under the Parliamentary 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 duties should not be 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 had no statutory validity and were only included in the Bill for convenience. This would cause a surprise both in Britain and in the dominions. Mr Neville Chamberlain said that all Governments coming into power found agreements and conventions, but had to wait for fixed periods before they could vary them. It was true Parliament could, if it chose, 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 to 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 unemployment, but they did claim that they provided new opportunities for trade over a wide field and smoothed the way towards a wider agreement among the nations of the world. . , , The third reading was carried by 416 votes to 68.

AGREEMENT RATIFIED CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. (Rec. 7 p.m.) Ottawa, November 3. The House of Commons ratified the Anglo-Canadian trade agreement on Thursday night by 128 votes to 80. The agreement was supported by the Conservatives, one Liberal and six Progressives, including several Western Farmer members. It was opposed by the Liberals, two Independents and four Labour members.