Safeguarding Plan Is Not Protection

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 513, 16 November 1928, Page 9

Safeguarding Plan Is Not Protection

BRITISH INDUSTRIES SCHEME EXPLAINED Uritish OMcuil sVireUss. LONDON. Wednesday The debate on the Address-in-Reply to the King's Speech was resumed in the House of Commons to-day. Mr. Philip Snowden.-the iormcr Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved an amendment calling atteu tion to the recently announced policy of the Government Party, which urged that the earliest possible step should be taken to safeguard additional in dustries. and especially the iron and steel industry, and to the Prime Minister's declaration that no partial measures such as an extension ot the Safeguarding of Industries Act could meet the situation. Mr. Snowden demanded from the Prime Minister a definite statemeu. of what he meant by his declaration. He recalled that the Prime Minister, at the general election of 1923, had pronounced in favour of . fundamental change in the fiscal system. The

country would not have protection at that time, and the Prime Minister was defeated. He asked the Prime Minister to tell the House the difference between the policy which he put before the country in 1926 and his new one. The Secretary of State for War. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, on behalf of the Government, said its policy was one of safeguarding, and could not be mistaken for a policy of protection. A tribunal would be set up by the president of the Board of Trade to consider applications for the imposition of safeguarding import duties. The Government would not be bound by the advice of the tribunal, but would act on its own responsibility. WORK OF THE TRIBUNAL The tribunal would-have to .decide whether foreign goods of the class or description to which an applicant's industry related were being importer! into and retained for consumption in this country in substantial quaiLities. In proportion to the domestic consumption. Further, it would consider whether employment in this country in the manufacture of such goods was being, or was likely to be, seriously affected; whether the foreign goods so imported were manufactured in the country of origin under unfair or iff* ferior conditions of labour; whether the British industry :oncerned would materially increase its output; whether the applicant’s industry was carried out in this country with reasonable efficiency and economy: whether the imposition of a duty on the cost of the class or description of goods in question would seriously or versely affect employment, and the cost of production in such industry, including agriculture; whether, having regard to these conditions, the applicant had, in the opinion of the committee, established his claim for duty, and if so, what rate of duty in the opinion of the committee would be reasonable and sufficient to countervail the unfair competition. This tribunal would be a permanent body, instead of a committee set up ad hoc. as in the past. In regard to the iron and steel industry, Sir Laming recalled that the application by that industry for the appointment of a committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act was not. granted in 1925, because many other Industries which used iron and steel as theh- raw material feareil that their own industries might be prejudiced by the increased cost of iron and steel. STEEL INDUSTRY But the steel trade had now put forward a new case, which showed that the low output capacity was many times the actual output in individual steelworks, and if the output could be brought up to sometihng like the capacity, the reduction in coßt would be very considerable. That was a case for investigation by the tribunal. Safeguarding had notably increased employment In the motor industry, which employed 30,000 more persons than in 1924. It had similarly increased employment in the silk and musical instruments trade. MR. BALDWIN WINDS UP Mr. Baldwin, in w inding up the d< - bate, said the policies of the nations since the war had been to increase the tariff barriers. If he were the dictator of the world he would abolish all these obstacles. But he had to frame a policy in accordance with the actual conditions. As a democrat he had accepted the people’s decision in 1923. If the country would not give him the tools he wanted he must use the tools available. If he cou'd not get a shovel he must use a tr He fell back on safeguarding, wnich was still the Government’s policy. The House should not overlook the decline in emigration since the vrar. Comparing the last five years with the five years prior to the war, there were 750.000 more people in the country than there would have been if the pre-war rate of emigration had been maintained. If the Labour Party were returned to power, it would do nothing to protect British labour. The Government was confident it would re % 5 v..‘ the verdict of the country in its po.ii v i of safeguarding. Mr. Snow-den's amendment was reI jected by 309 votes to 158, and the ’ Address-in-Reply was carried.