SAFEGUARDING INDUSTRY

Taranaki Daily News, 10 July 1929, Page 9

SAFEGUARDING INDUSTRY

ENGLISH DUTIES DEBATED LABOUR DOUBTS BENEFITS RIGHT TO REVISE RESERVED (British Official Wireless.) Rugby, July 8. The Government’s policy towards the safeguarding of industries duties, the McKenna duties, and analogous imposts was debated in the House of Commons to-day on a motion raised by the expresident of the Board of Trade. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister. Sir Philip contended that since the introduction of safeguarding, trade and unemployment has considerably improved in the various industries affected. He declared that not only had the duties had a beneficial effect from the point of view of the building of British factories and the extension of existing factories but foreign firms had also been encouraged to erect factories in this country. These duties, Sir Philip said, had given industry a security which had produced development, which, in its turn, had increased efficiency. He invited the Government to indicate its. attitude. Mr. George Lambert (Liberal) said the country was decisively against safeguarding and protection, as was again shown at the last election. The cheapening of transport would do more for inter-imperial trade than tariffs. He urged the withdrawal of all Government control from industry. Mr. William Smith, Parliamentary secretary to the president of the Board of Trade, said the Prime Minister declined to consider the setting up of a commission to inquire into the effects of safeguarding upon the industries to which it had already been applied. SUGGESTED EXCESS PROFIT DUTY. He said the Government was not prepared to consider the maintenance and extension of safeguarding in conjunction with a judiciously applied excess profits duty that would secure 1. the revenue a reasonable share of any existing profits which might accrue to industries as a result of the application of safeguard-

ing. It was the intention of the Government in the first instance to approach the question of importation on the British market of goods produced under sweated conditions of labour in foreign countries by way of an international discussion, and, it was hoped to reach agreement. Mr. William Graham, president of the Board of Trade, said that without in any way reflecting on their sincerity, the Government was unable to share the views of the advocates of safeguarding. The Government suggested that in the last resort, and it might be at a comparatively early date, that policy would reduce the aggregate volume of commerce and actually add ti the ranks of those who were out of work.

The Labour Party did not regard free trade, tariff reform or safeguarding as a solution of the industrial problems. The McKenna duties had been imposed during the war for specific purposes: to safeguard tonnage (which was a vital and urgent problem), to bring in a certain amount of revenue and to strike a certain blow at luxuries imported into the country during that time. Those ! duties were continued after the war by ; the Conservatives for frankly protective purposes. 1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. ’ Snowden, would to-morrow deal with ' the problem of the McKenna duties, tak--1 Ing the silk duties, the McKenna duties, and the Budget duties. Mr, Graham ’ could make no statement in anticipation of the Finance Bill of next year. That 1 must be reserved for the Chancellor of ■ the Exchequer and the Government, but with regard to ordinary safeguarding duties, the Government as a party had always opposed those duties. It had given no pledge to allow them to continue when they expired. RE-ORGANISATION NEEDED. Miss Wilkinson stated she was surprised to see so little reference to the safeguarding in the iron and steel trades which had been- strongly advocated before the election. An inquiry into the condition of that industry would go further than the employers desired. Threequarters of the blast furnaces in Middleborough were 25 years old, yet they were trying to compete with French, Belgian, German and American works which had been reorganised within the past five years. It was like a pushbicycle trying to race a motor-cycle. Not tariffs but radical reorganisation of the industry was needed. The industry was ripe for nationalisation. The Rt. Hon. Thomas Shaw stated the Government would accept no further applications for protective duties under the guise of what was known as a safeguarding White Paper proceduie. No duties under it would be renewed. The Ministry reserved the right to propose the remission or revision of existing duties in the interest of the country. That was a plain, clear statement of the policy. “I should be delighted it to-morrow the Empire fell into agreement with us and let us have free trade within the Empire, but I fear that the idea of Australia and South Africa taking off their protective tariffs is little better than a dream.” .... Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said in view of Britain’s increasing trade with the Dominions, it would be madness to depart from the late Government’s policy < of Imperial preference. The Ministry had an opportunity, by continuing preference, of sending a whole message of i encouragement and hope. Sir Philip said the real hope of de- < veloping exports was bound up with < the expansion of trade within the Em- < pire. Thirty thousand additional people < had been employed in the motor indus- ] try since the McKenna duties were im- 1 posed, while employees in the silk trade < had gone up by 28,000 or 30,000. Even f the Hove duty led to 1700 more employ- i ed. °Since the lace duty had been imposed employment had increased by 33 < per cent., the output by 41 per cent., ; and the wages paid by 49 per cent. i British production of fine chemicals had [ doubled. Motor-car and tyre factories j and silk firms had been established since , the duties were imposed. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said it was ] not proposed to appoint a committee to i consider the effect of trade union rules i and restrictions upon trade and unem- j plbyment,- .••••.- 1