BRITISH POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 December 1922, Page 5

BRITISH POLITICS.

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY. THE DEBATE CONTINUED. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright Received Dec. 5, 5.5 p.m. London, Dec. 4. The debate on the Addresa-in-Reply wifi continued in the House of Commons. Sir John Simon (Deputy-Leader of the Liberals) moved an amendment regretting there was no mention in the Speech of the repeal of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and other protective measures, which were raising prices, hampering trade and limiting employment. Sir John Simon said 33 l-3rd per cent, had been placed on many articles, on the ground that they were key industries, especially chemicals. The Act was opposed to the real trading interests of the country. The Government, in their endeavor to do a little right, were doing a great wrong to all sorts of people. Sir P. Lloyd-Graeme (President of the Board of Traade) replying, reminded the House of the disabilities suffered during the war through lack of certain chemical productions. It was said that by retaining these Acts the Government had. a war in mind. Sir Robert Horne urged that the duty of 33 l-3rd per cent, had an important beneficial bearing upon the internal and external value of the mark. The Act was a product of Mr. Asquith’s Government, when he appointed the Balfour and Burleigh committee, which reported that the key industries, such as the chemical industry, must b» retained at all costs. The amendment was rejected by 2fi9 votes to 207. Sir P. Lloyd-Graeme said that, as a matter of fact, the Act was our best assurance that if we had to face another war we would be prepared to equip our forces with efficient industries. It was also the best in* surance for peace. It would be unwise to repeal the Act at, a time wffien the United States had created a tariff under circum* stances which were likely to lead to attempts at dumping in this country. Mr. Asquith ridiculed the imposition o! the 33 l-3rd per cent, duty on Germar products when the mark stood at nearly 40,000. If there had been a sliding scab adjusted to the rate of exchange that would have been consistent, but otherwisi the duty was useless. If not it was a plain violation of commercial treaties and a hindrance to business. It was condemned by the whole banking and commercial community.