PERMANENT TRIBUNAL WILL DEAL WITH SAFEGUARDING SCHEME

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18614, 16 November 1928, Page 9

PERMANENT TRIBUNAL WILL DEAL WITH SAFEGUARDING SCHEME

NEW PROCEDURE IS EXPLAINED BY BALDWIN. (United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) (Received November 16, 11.30 a.m.) RUGBY, November 15. An outstanding feature of the new procedure under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which was outlined in the House of Commons last night, and will become effective after the General Election if the Government is returned to power, is that instead of ad hoc committees in respect of each application for the imposition of safeguarding duties, a permanent tribunal is to be established for the purpose. It is generally agreed that that will give the findings of the tribunal additional weight, and will standardise procedure. It was, however, pointed out by the Prime Minister in the speech with which the House of Commons dehate was concluded, that this naturally will not affect in the slightest the responsibility of the Government, or of Parliament, with which the ultimate decision will rest. This, said Mr Baldwin, was a very big check against the Government using safeguarding schemes to introduce protection. Every duty that was recommended had to be argued on the floor of the House, and if at any time the House of Commons felt that the Government was getting near danger point, they could raise the matter. In several other respects the new procedure will differ from the old, with the general intention of making it less expensive and less obstructive, but at the same time more searching. The newspapers attach importance to several variations in the conditions, which at present govern the tribunal in granting applications. It is proposed under the new conditions that imports of foreign goods of a description to which an application relates are to be “in quantities substantial in proportion to domestic consumption.” At present the requirement made on this point is that the imports should be “in abnormal quantities.” Another new consideration by which the tribunal will be guided is as to whether, as a result of the duty, the industry in this country would materially increase its output. The tribunal must also take into account whether the imposition of the duty would exert a seriously ad verse effect on employment, or the costs of production in any other productive industry, including agriculture. This provision is a complete departure from the present procedure. Other alterations introduced are mainly of a verbal character. Two stipulations governing present procedure are omitted from that outlined last night. These impose upon the tribunal the necessity of inquiring whether the applicant's industry is of substantial importance, and whether foreign imported goods are sold at prices which are below those prices at which similar goods could be profitably manufactured, or produced, in * the United Kingdom. Mr Laming Worthington-Evans, who unfolded the Government proposals in the House of Commons, made special reference to the iron and steel trades, for the safeguarding of which some representations were made at the recent Annual Conference of the Conservative Party. He said that a test case had been put forward now by the steel trade, which showed that the low output precluded that industry in this country from international competition. The output capacity was many times the actual output in individual steel works, and if the output could be brought to something like capacity, the reduction in cost would be very considerable. There would also be a considerable improvement in employment in that industry, and in the coal and iron industries as well. Their case was that discussions might be avoided by their being able so to reduce cogts that they could bring with them the support of the user of steel. That user had never been considered. It was a case for investigation by a tribunal, and had not yet been proved.—British Official Wireless.