§ MR. LOUGH () Islington W.I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade under what Clause of the Brussels Convention would exporters of confectionery, preserves, and other goods containing sugar derive advantage by reduction in the duties chargeable on the admission of their manufactures by the foreign countries who had signed the Convention; and whether provision has been made for admission of manufactures from this country on the same terms as we admit foreign confectionery and similar goods.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralBritish exporters of confectionery and similar goods will share in the benefits derived from Article III. of the Brussels Convention, which limits the surtax, and therefore limits the discrimination against the British exporter to the amount of the surtax. There is no provision in the Convention for equality of import duty on these goods throughout the various contracting countries.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER () Kent, ThanetWill there be a larger tax placed upon imports than that levied upon home producers in any of these countries?
§ MR. LOUGHCan the right hon. Gentleman explain how this surtax which only exists in foreign countries can benefit the exporter from this country?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI did not say it did.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)Is there any limit at all to the surtax itself? Does the Convention deal with anything more than the difference between the import and the excise duties?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThe surtax is the difference.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, by Article IV. of the Sugar Convention (Brussels), Great Britain is bound to impose upon sugars or sugared products coming to this country from British self-governing Colonies a countervailing duty equal to any bounties granted by such Colonies on the production or exportation of such sugars or sugared products; if not, will he say by what Article of the Convention the general obligation imposed by Article IV. is removed from Great Britain in respect of her self-governing colonies; and can he say whether the construction placed upon the Convention in this respect by His Majesty's Government is agreed to by the other high contracting parties to the Convention.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURThere is nothing in Article IV. of the Brussels Convention which imposes an obligation on the contracting Powers to penalise sugar imported from their own Colonies. Any possibility of doubt on this point is removed so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned by paragraph A (2) of the Final Protocol, which reserves in principle entire liberty of action as regards the fiscal relations between the United Kingdom and its Colonies and possessions. I am aware that this view is controverted by some of the Powers who signed the Convention, but our own attitude was made perfectly clear to the conference by repeated declarations on the part of our delegates. These are embodied in the proces-verbaux, in which it was stated 921 that this country would not in any case apply a penal Clause to the self-governing Colonies. The Convention was agreed to by the Powers with full knowledge of these declarations.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESThis is a very important matter. Are the procesverbaux part of the protocol? And is it not the case that the protocol binds Great Britain not to give her self-governing Colonies any preference over other countries, in regard to sugars coming from them?
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI believe I am correct in saying that, where any doubt exists as to the interpretation of a Clause in the protocol, reference is to be made to the proces-verbal. The protocol does not bind us to countervail any bounty given by the Colonies.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked where the proces varbal could be obtained, as it was not contained in any published Paper.
§ MR. GERALD BALFOURI have no personal knowledge, but I have been informed that the proces-verbal can be seen in the library now.