TRADE AGREEMENTS

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 241, 12 May 1933, Page 6

TRADE AGREEMENTS

DENMARK AND ARGENTINE discussionln house of COMMONS Press Association —Copyright Rugby, May 10. The Danish and Argentine trade agreements were discussed in the House of Commons to-day. Mr. Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, said that the agreements were with countries which had been in close commercial alliance with Britain for a very long time. In Argentina, he said, nearly all the great developments of the docks, harbours, railways and roads had been effected out of the facilities provided by Britain. The total amount invested in providing Argentine with railways was estimated at over £500,000,000, there being no investment with outside countries comparable with this within the experience of modern industry. In the case of Denmark, said Mr. Runciman, a large amount of its industrial prosperity had depended not so much on British enterprise as upon Danish enterprise in the British markets. The balance of trade had for the last 20 years been preponderatingly on the side of Denmark. In 1930 imports from Denmark exceeded the exports to Denmark five-fold. Following the exhibition of British goods at Copenhagen the ratio was reduced in 1932 to four to one, but that did-not go far enough.

Contracts in Denmark As an outstanding feature of the increased trade resulting from the agreement Mr. Runciman cited the order for the Storstrom bridge, and mentioned the general understanding that for Government and municipal purposes the first offer of orders of iron and steel should be made to United Kingdom firms, coupled in the case of the Government with a price preference of 10 per cent. On the other side Britain had given an undertaking regarding Danish ham and bacon. The agreement had achieved something in the way of security for the future.

An entirely different set of problems presented itself in regard to Argentina, where, unlike Denmark, the tariffs were high and attempts had been made to secure a reduction in duties.

Under the financial section of the Argentina agreement there had been sent to Britain about £1,250,000 to liquefy small transactions. Beyond that total the amount still due would be liquefied through ,he process of bonds issued on the curity of the Argentina Government, to be placed in the hands of representative authorities in Britain and used by them for the provision of cash in sterling in the place of frozen paper. This meant liquefying about £11,00,000. Having once started this process of liquefying cash which had been frozen under the exchange restriction they hop°d that the example would be followed ftlsewhore. Everything would be done o" Britain's part to facilitate similar Iran "ictions.

The representatives of Argentina had undertaken, as regarded goods of which a substantial proportion of the imports into Argentina was derived from the United Kingdom, and in respect of which proposals had been submitted to them for a reduction in the Customs duties, to return to the general rates of duty and valuation of duty of such goods in force in 1930. The discussions were to be continued in Argentina. Mr. Runciman pointed out as a remarkable fact that no less than 99 per cent, of the chilled beef exported from a population of nearly three millions. Argentina came to Britain. They had to bear in mind in dealing with Argentine wheat that two other markets, the home and Dominions markets, were of primary concern to Britain. The Government hoped by these agreements that it had done, something to turn the tide, and it would now tend in the direction of a steadier price level. Mr. L. C. M. S. Amery (Conservative) said that both the Danish and Argentina agreements contradicted the whole spirit of the Ottawa agreements. They barred many directions for an expansion of Imperial preferences. "We were solving the problem of sending the Dominions' chilled beef to Britam," he said. "Rhodesia is making hopetuJ experiments in that direction, and we have reason to believe that Australian chilled beef could be brought in good condition. Yet the Argentine agreement will prevent the development of this trade.

"Denmark," continued Mr. Amery, "has the minimum quota of our total butter imports compared with a serious diminution in Dominion supplies. Valuable as the Danish trade is, it must be remembered that New Zealand butter represents £3,000,000 in freights alone. The New Zealand shipning trade represented an actual value of £25,000,000." Mr. W. E. Elliot, replying, said that when Britain entered the World Economic Conference she would defend the actions taken to regulate supplies by means of a quota system. He was certain the conference would approve planning in preference to an anarchic scramble. Denmark's butter quota maintained the principle of "home producer first, Dominion second and foreign third."

Neither agreement showed antagonism to increasing Dominion imports, but the market could not stand the supplies now being hurled at it. There were at present unrestricted imports of the Dominions' butter and cheese; consequently the butter price was falling so rapidly and stocks of home cheese were so heavy that it was impossible to say whether the situation could be saved. It was imperative to seek a higher price, even by restriction of imports or, if necessary, by restriction of production. The Government's measures were sound He believed other countries would ultimately have t.l follow the same line. He denied every one o! Mr. Amery's charges about the spirii )t Ottawa Mr. E'lir.t c uiuunced that if the agreements were sanctioned by the Government he would immediately consult representatives of countries supplying milk products to Britain with a view to arranging a restriction of supplies. The Ottawa agreements provided that the Dominions should agree as to access to this market. Britain could deal with them only by agreement und consultation. Sir Herbert Samuel said Mr. Elliot seemed to advocate a policy of general regulation of agricultural products in Britain and every other country. With such a policy the Government might as well withdraw from the conference, for on those lines its labours were bound to be futile. There was no division on the agreements, which were discussed under an adjournment motion. This was later withdrawn.