BRITISH FISCAL POLICY

Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1928, Page 6

BRITISH FISCAL POLICY

‘‘NO PARTIAL MEASURES.” PRIME MINISTER’S DECLARATION. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, Novomver 14. The debate on the Address-in-Reply was resumed in the Commons to-day. Mr Snowden moved an amendment, calling attention to the recently announced policy of the Government Party, urging that the earliest possible step should be taken to saleguard industries, and especially iron and steel industry; and to the Prime Minister’s declaration that no partial measures, such as the extension ol the Safeguarding of Industries Act, could meet the situation.

31 r Snowden demanded from the Prime Minister a definite statement ol what lie meant by bis declaration, lie recalled that the Prime Minister, at the General Election of 1923. had pronounced in favour of a fundamental change in the fiscal system. The country would not have Protection at that time, and the Prime Minister was defeated. Me asked the Prime Minister to tell the House the dificrence between the policy which he put before the country in 192(5 and his new one. Sir L. Worthington Evans said, on

behalf of the Government, that their policy was one of safeguarding, and could not he mistaken lor a policy of protection. A tribunal would ho set up by the President of the Board of i rade to consider applications for the imposition of safeguarding import duties. The Government would not be hound by the advice of the tribunal, buf act on its own responsibility. The tribunal would have to decide whether foreign goods of tlies class or description to which the applicants’ industry related were being imported into and retained for consumption in this country in substantial quantities in proportion to tlu> domestic consumption ; ami. further, whether employment, in tics country in the manufacture of sileh goods was being or was likely to he seriously affected : whether foreign goods so imported were manufactured in the country of origin under unfair or inferior conditions of labour; whether the British industry concerned would materially in; lease its output; whether the applicants’ industry was carried out in this country with reason able efficiency and economy; whether the imposition (.if a duty on the cost ol i : :s class or description ol goods in question would seriously or adversely effort- employment and the tost of production in such all industry, including agriculture, and whether, having regard to these conditions, the applicants industry had in tlm opinion of the committee established a claim lor duty, and if so what rate of duty in the

opinion ol the commdtee would bo reasonable and and sufficient to countervail unfair competition. Inis tribute I would he a permanent body, instead o a committee ad hoc, as in the past. In regard io the iron and steel industry. Sir L. Worthington Evans recalled that the application by tlinr industry for the appointment ol a committee under the Safeguarding Act was not granted in 192.), because many other industries which used iron and steel as their raw materials, feared their own industries might, he prejudiced by tlie increased cost ol iron and steel, but the steel trade now pul forward a new case, which showed that the Lw output capacity was manv times tin* actual output m mdp i<!ji i[ steelworks, and if the output, could be brought up to something like capacity in cost the rduetion would he very considerable. I hat was the case for investigation by the tribunal. Fir Worthington Evans added that the Prime .Minister had pledged himself that a general tariff was not part of the Government’s programme, and that if had been faithfully fulfilled in this Parliament, and would he equally faithfully fulfilled in the next.

Sir L. Worthington Evans said that

safeguarding had not ably increased employment. The motor industry vim employing thirty thousand more than in 192-1. and employment had similarly increased in silk and musical instillments.

Sir 11. Page Croft said Urn Government was elected lo os I end safeguarding, Since 1 lion manufactures bad in creased sidlirieiiitly to give employ me ill to an additional quarter of •' million ol Mritish subjects. Sir 11. A. Sanders warned the Government that representatives ol Die agricultural areas were not going to support tariffs from which agriculture was directly excluded. They viewed the safeguarding of iron and steel suspiciously, and would demand an assurance that prices of farmers’ ’requisites were not going to be increased. MR. BALDWIN’S REP IAN LONDON, November 1-1. In the Commons, Air Baldwin said there had been a winding up ol the policies of European nations since the war. and there had hern an increase in tariff barriers. If he were a dictator. he would abolish all these obstacles. hut he had to Iramo a policy in accordance with the actual conditions. As a democrat, he had accept-, cd the people's decision in 19-3. D the country would not give him toe tools be wanted; he must use the tools available. If he could not get a shovel lie must use a trowel. He had fallen back on safeguarding, which was still the Government’s policy. Iho House should not overlook the post-war drag in emigration. Comparing the last five years with the five years immediately prior to the war, there were 700.000 more people in the country than there

would luive been if tbe pre-war emigration rate had been maintained. If the Labour Party were returned, it would do nothing to protect British labour. The CJovernnient was confident it would receive the verdict ol the country on the policy of safeguarding. The amendment was rejected by 309 to loh and the Address-m-noply was carried. *wxr‘. wnmtmumsiXMaßM