BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 April 1928, Page 3

BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

* BUDGET DEBATE. An.sirahau 8n..--. Assn. United Service LHNDt»\ April cm In :h'- Hons.- ol ( .ii-mion.-. So Rob.-ri. » I..rii '■ io\ I foi in -Ilori re.-urned tbe Lodge-, ib .:ali. lie -x pressed the opinion lieu .i marked a inning poini in Britain'- post-war ibrlum-s. Mi Cliiircliill bad sboa n n road from the

morass ol misfortunes. lie welinineil the prospeci of iln- national debt lining paid off within a reasonable period.

Sir R. Hnriie said In- regretted that the money had lo be found from the petrol lax. 'litis would nave been welcomed if it bad been a substitution for (lie inequitable power lax on motor

Sir f{. Horne said lie bad the authority of Mr Morris and of Sir Herbert Austin, ear manufacturers, to say that it was quite untrue that British ears would be unable to compete with foreign ears if the power tax were abolished. The British motor ear trade overseas would not succeed till some tax other than tbe power ta.x were devised. I’L. Hon. W. Runeiman < LibernU said that cheaper money would have a more far-reaching benefit on industry than the rate relief scheme, the money for winch would have to come from the householders, the shop-keepers and the

general taxpayers. Mr Churchill remarked: "Without the coal subsiclv the strike would have

come a year earlier.” Mr Runeiman. continuing, said that strikes were not inevitifble. Even il the strike came a year earlier, it would have saved the subsidy, which had cost tbe country twenty-three million. Rb Hon. Neville Chamberlain (Minister of Health) said that the critics of the Budget mostly misunderstood the scope of the rate relief scheme. He believed that this scheme would go down in history as "a land-mark ol our civilisation.”

i’t. Hon. W. Hralmni (Labour) said this rate relief scheme would involve great technical and administrative difficulties. while its benefits did not distinguish between the successful and the admittedly bankrupt industries.

Rt. Hon. RJ^MiieDoiiald derw attention to the rubber position. He complained that as Liu- result ol Mr Baldwin’s statement on February Stb and April lib. announcing export restrictions would cease next November.

shares were sacrificed in a tragic panic thus diminishing tin* value ol the rub her stocks by thirty millions.

Mr E. T. Campl.i-ll (Conservative), who is a rubber expert, said that the public were grossly misled by exaggerstatements being made. He declared it ah-urd to sa.v that tbe market had suffered Hie loss-- alleged by Mr MacDonald. Rt. Hon. Mr An,cry (C "fm.inl Secivt„iyj said tbe Treasur*. wc --inci-rie'd in illl- I libber pOMIUr. wb" n was a most important industry in lion with the gold standard Commander Kcnworihy (Labour) intervening, said : \\ by did you let the New York bears get the advantage. Mr Amery said that the announcement of the cessation ol restriction was given to the newspapers at six o’clock lor publication next morning. Appaientlv someone bad telegraphed this information to New 1 ork bc-lore tbe New York Rubber Exchange had closed. As a matter of fact, the United States did not believe the news, and neither the American not" the British investors \teie fleeced. The control had been useful in tin* United States, but became a stranglehold. The engineering industry's experience had showed that it was much hotter to leave the industry to control it sell. Mr J. 11. Thomas reiterated that the Government’s handling of the matter find done incalculable harm to the British investor. The Government’s majority on the question of the adjournment was only 191 to 94.