TARIFF FOR ENGLAND

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 197, 20 August 1931, Page 1

TARIFF FOR ENGLAND

Traditional Free Trade Policy Altered. ECONOMY GROUP’S REPORT. United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, August 19. The “ Daily Herald ” says that among the proposals made by the Economy Committee to Cabinet for discussion and decision will be the imposition of a general emergency tariff of 10 per cent for revenue purposes. Other proposals include the following:—

The temporary suspension of sinking fund payments. A tax on interest-bearing securities. Increased contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, with or without reductions in benefits, but coupled with administrative changes designed to prevent abuses. Voluntary conversion of the war loan.

The '‘Daily Herald ” adds: “ The proposal for a revenue tariff will receive support from Ministers who have hitherto been rigid free-traders, who will urge it as an emergency measure. A 10 per cent tariff on retained manufactures, including imports of partly finished articles, will yield, on the basis of the imports of 1931, £20,000,000. A further 10 per cent on food at present not taxed will possibly yield £25,000,000. Suspension of sinking fund payments will save £50,000,000, the increase in unemployment contributions will yield £9,000,000, and the yield of the securities tax is problematical. Members of the Cabinet, as an example to the nation, will accept cuts in their own salaries.” _ The significance of this statement lies in its publication in the Government organ. LONG CABINET SITTING. (Received August 20, noon.) RUGBY, August 19. The Cabinet Economy Committee concluded its work last night, but the nature of its report is being kept secret, until after consideration by the meeting of the full Cabinet which has been studying the matter all day and is expected to sit until late into the night. Cabinet will endeavour to reach definite decisions, which will be placed before the Labour Party and the Trades Unions to-morrow. X* CAN LOOK ON CALMLY.” Any Criticism Would be Impertinent. WILL IT AFFECT N.Z.? ** A tariff of 10 per cent on foodstuffs .nay yield £25,000,000 to the British Government. It will not be a tax upon us, but upon the British public, and we can look on calmly,” commented a commercial economist this morning after studying the proposals of the British Economy Committee. “ These proposals cannot affect us, however astounding they may be for public, and it would savour of impertinence on our part to offer criticism,” he added. “If we compete with others in the London market on level terms, it will make no difference to us.” There was a possibility, however, that, if the United States lifted its duties, reciprocal trading might result with British Dominions and Britain would then suffer. Many Reservations. Most of the comments made were hedged with reservations. A great obstacle in the way of any statement of definite opinions was the fact that the cabled message did not make it clear whether the general tariff would cover wool. Assuming that it did, the general opinion was that the British Dominions would be forced to seek other markets for primary produce, buying what manufactured goods they required under reciprocal agreements. “ This is likely to lead New Zealand away from the purchase of British goods,” declared Mr David Crozier, sen., president of the British U.K. Manufacturers’ Association. “ There is very little one can say about it at the present time, but it will certainly affect Great Britain generally.” “ The thing is about as broad as it’s long,” he added. “We can almost take it for granted that the tax on foodstuffs will include wool, and, even if that is not so, it will be a serious matter for New Zealand as, apart from wool and hides, our exports to Great Britain all come under the heading of foodstuffs. It will affect us more than any other part of the world.”

Mr Crozier pointed out that the Labour Government in Great Britain had always been free-trade in principle, but it looked as though the emergency was such that the Government was being driven to change over. Free-trade had been a plank of the Labour Party’s platform, and motor-car manufacturers had feared that the Government might remove the M’Kenna duties, amounting to about 33 1-3 per cent, which would have crippled the industry completely. This had not been done, which was a straw to show which way the wind was blowing.

Food Prices Affected. “ A general tariff may help the Budget, but it is questionable whether it will help England much generally,” said Professor A. H. Tocker last night, commenting on the proposals of the Economy Committee. “ I doubt whether England will accept this tariff. The English working man is strongly a free-trader, because he is frightened that a tariff might force up the price of his food and clothing. Most of the imports into England are food and rawmaterials. Such a tariff might force up the costs of food, and also manufacturing costs. England’s difficulty is in finding a market for the manufactured goods. “ General tariff is more or less a euphemism,” Professor Tocker continued. “It means protection, I should say. There are many big people in England who make out a strong case for protection, and the figure they urge is 10 per cent.” “It is a little early to comment, but if this general tariff actually does affect our meat and wool this country will be vitally interested,” said Mr H. S. E. Turner, president of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce. “ However, comment is all we will be able to do. We cannot interfere with the Old Country. England has never interfered with us, and we have placed our tariffs where we liked. The British Government has already rather turned up its nose at the Economy Committee, and I do not think a Labour Government will approve any tax on food.” Too Much Fuss. “ I think we are likely to make too much of a fuss about this altogether,” said a business man who has recently , returned from a trip to England. “ I can’t see that it is so revolutionary after all. The tradition of Britain as the champion of free-trade seems to die harder in the outlying parts of the Empire than in the Old Land. As a matter of fact, Britain has to all inteflts and purposes renounced free-trade. Many industries have been safeguarded for some years now, and, if that is not protection. I should like to know what is.

“If Cobden and Bright were ever expected to turn in their graves they must have done it long ago.”