IMPERIAL TRADE

Taranaki Daily News, 31 January 1930, Page 9

IMPERIAL TRADE

ECONOMIC UNITY SOUGHT “DEARER FOOD” DISCUSSION UPROAR IN BRITISH HOUSE OPPOSITION TO FREE TRADE By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. London, Jan. 30. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald informed Mr. A. C. Dixey in the House of Commons last night that he was not prepared to consider the appointment of- a committee of business men and trade unionists to consider tariffs and Imperial trade. Mr. >P. J. Hannon asked if the Government had an Imperial trade policy. Tliere was'no reply. Mr. J. R. Remer said there was a considerable opinion in Australia in'favour of an Empire marketing scheme; South Africa and New Zealand would also benefit. It could be achieved instantly by the formation of a British Empire Fiscal Union, placing a tariff wall against foreign goods. The scheme had proved sound economically wherever it had been tried, Mr. Remer added that it might be said they proposed a tax on food, but it would only be on foreign and raw material. (Labour laughter.) Thcfe could not be any increase in prices because the Empire could supply all the food, except from that Britain which would tend to increase. Mr. Reiher moved “that in. the opinion of this House it is desirable that the Empire bo developed as a single economic unit with- internal free trade as the ideal, and the Government be urged to open negotiations with the other Governments of the Empire with a view to formulating a policy designed to secure that the purchasing power of the Empire shall be directed primarily to full employment of the inhabitants of the Empire.” NOT AFRAID OF “DEAR FOOD.” Mr. Remer said he was not in the least afraid of the cry, “Your food will cost you more.” If it proved to be true, which he did not believe, they would be giving a good deal of permanent employment to their people instead of doles and unemployment. Mr. Lloyd George, the Liberal leader, agreed that it was desirable to get all that was possible of the trade of the Dominions and colonies, but the real test was what were they going to give in return. Not a word was said of that. Was .it a promise that if the Dominions dropped the tariffs Britain would tax foreign food and raw materials, Mr. Lloyd George asked. He was all for making the Empire an economic unit. Was Britain going to ask the Dominions to push out goods that competed with Britains? Britain already was conceding free trade to the Dominions. The colonies’ food and raw materials entered free. It would be Empire free trade if they gave Britain the same access for its commodities. Lord Beaverbrook, said Mr. Lloyd George, had a new policy for every moon and sent it immediately to the Morning Post—a sort of trying it on a dog. If it survived, the Daily Express had to swallow it. There would have to be great efforts before some members swallowed it.. They would have to be forcibly fed. CLOUDING OF THE ISSUE. Difficulties had arisen. The Dominions’ key industries had to be exempted, so what remained? Not .iron, steel, machinery and textiles, but a few unimportant odds and ends. The scheme had crisscrossed until the pattern had disappeared. The worst of a scheme like this with catchwords seeking to attract both the free-trader and the protectionist was that it would result in a huge controversy diverting the people’s minds from an examination of the real difficulties. The way out of the difficulties was rejrganisatibn of the country, sticking to realities and dropping phantasies. Mr. Lloyd George moved a Liberal amendment to add at the end of the motion the words: “Provided that any such proposals shall not include additional taxation upon foodstuffs or raw materials imported into the United Kingdom.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. P, Snowden) said that as this was a private member’s discussion he would not deal with any of the statements made in the debate, but would confine himself simply to that part of the motion which called on the Government to take action. The most regrettable feature of the debate had been the silence of members of the late Conservative Government on this question. The speech of the two members who introduced the motion had made it perfectly clear that the motion meant taxation of food and raw materials and of manufactured articles from foreign countries, which would necessarily raise prices. lie need hardly say the Government could give no support to a proposal of that kind. The Government was asked to open negotiations with the other Governments of the Empire for the formulation of a policy designed to secure that the purchasing power of the Empire should be directed primarily to the full employment of the inhabitants of the Empire. If that stood alone, apart from what went before, the Government would have no objection to it because it was anxious to do all that it could to promote Imperial trade. The Labour Party had supported every measure which in its opinion was likely to keep together the bond uniting the Mother Country and the overseas Dominions. “That we shall continue to do,” continued Mr. Snowden, “but we shall give no support to a policy such as is hidden in the terms of the resolution. A vote for the resolution would be a vote for a tax o” the people’s food and for proposals which would increase the costs of production in every manufacturing industry in this country and reduce the standard of living of the workers of this country.” The debate was adjourned. It would be more correct to say the debate was talked out than adjourned. Practically the whole House welcomed the avoidance of a division. When Mr. Snowden finished with insistence that a vote in favour of the motion would mean in favour of a tax on the people’s food, half a dozen Conservatives jumped up. One said he "wantd to nail that lie,” ‘

This caused an outburst by the Labourites and meanwhile the moment passed when the debate must close. A Liberal moved the closure but the Speaker did not hear amid the din and called for the next motion. Mr. Baldwin quieted the House before the debate. Lord Beaverbrook listened >- ■