TRADE AGREEMENTS

Southland Times, Issue 22008, 6 May 1933, Page 5

TRADE AGREEMENTS

MR RUNCIMAN QUESTIONED. (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) London, May 4. Mr Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, in reply to questions in the House of Commons concerning the trade agreements, _ said that though all countries enjoying most favoured nation treatment would enjoy all the tariff reductions made under the trade agreements, the Government was not prepared to continue indefinitely the most favoured treatment to countries unwilling to treat British goods reasonably. MR AMERY’S CRITICISM CONTRARY TO OTTAWA SPIRIT. (United Press Assn—Telegraph Copyright.) London, May 4. Mr L. C. Amery in a letter to The Times says: “The Argentine and Danish agreements are a disastrous betrayal of the principles of Empire co-opera-tion. While they may be strictly consistent with the letter of Ottawa they are absolutely contrary to its spirit. Denmark’s butter allocation definitely restricts the opportunities for an expansion of an Empire industry. Mr Runciman has apparently been given a free hand to destroy piecemeal Britain s rudimentary tariff and frustrate all the development hoped for from Ottawa.’ GERMAN TREATY CONSERVATIVE CRITICISM. (United Press Assn.—Telegraph Copyright.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, May 4. In the House of Commons, Mr L. C. Amery, supported by several Conservatives, attacked the Anglo-German trade agreement. Mr Amery contended that Mr Walter Runciman had cut right across the principle of the Tariff Advisory Committee, and said it would be useless to put industries to the trouble of presenting their cases before the committee if the duties recommended were not adhered to. This would make the whole protective system unstable. . . Mr Runciman, replying, said the German agreement primarily concerned the state of the coal trade, and he did not wish the Government’s tariff policy to be tested by the German agreement. The decreasing demand for coal had hit Britain harder and harder. There had come a time when they had to protest to Germany against a lowering of the quota, which was inconsistent with the trade agreement of 1924. The Government might have gone to arbitration, but chose to negotiate. The present bargain was the best possible. Approval of the agreement was carried by 304 votes to 56.