§ 23. Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade if coal subsidised for export comes under the provisions of the Convention reached at Berne in connection with the Tariff Truce Conference; and, if so, on what terms?
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMThe Commercial Convention recently concluded at Geneva contains no provisions relating to subsidies for export; but the Protocol regarding the Programme of Further Negotiations concluded at the same conference includes export bounties and subsidies amongst the questions which are to form the subject of future examination and negotiation.
§ 26. Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Secretary-General of the League of Nations has notified him of the passage by the German Reichstag of a Bill increasing customs tariffs against Poland whose representative signed the Convention of his Tariff Truce at Geneva on 24th March; and will he state what steps it is proposed to take in view of this proposed breach of the spirit of the Tariff Truce?
§ 28. Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the communiqué issued by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on the subject of the note which the League has received from the Polish Government protesting against projected heavy increases in the German customs tariff applicable to Polish export products; and whether, in view of the Commercial Convention signed at Geneva on 24th March, he will say what action His Majesty's Government proposes to adopt?
§ Mr. GRAHAMThe Secretary-General of the League of Nations has forwarded to His Majesty's Government a communication to the League by the Polish Government regarding a German Bill providing for an increase in Customs duties, which, they state, has created an entirely new situation as compared with the state of affairs existing at the time when Poland signed the Commercial Convention. Article 2 of the Commercial Convention indicates the procedure to be adopted in cases of this kind by countries who consider their interests to be seriously affected by increases of duty on 737 the part, of other Contracting States. As the interests of this country are not so affected, His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action.
§ Mr. SAMUELDoes not the right hon. Gentleman see that this is an entirely new state of affairs, and that his artless toying with this tariff truce plaything is making Great Britain appear as a figure of fun in the eyes of the world?
§ Mr. HANNONDoes not this action on the part of the German Government really mean the complete breakdown of the whole of the Convention?
§ Mr. GRAHAMI do not take that view. We should require very much fuller details, and in any case there is no reason to assume at this moment that any representations which will be made will not have effect.
§ Mr. HANNONAs the whole question of the continuity of this truce is involved, what representations has the right hon. Gentleman made to the German Government with regard to the proposal now before the Reichstag?
§ Mr. GRAHAMIt is not for us to make representations unless we are directly affected. This is a specific case between two Governments, for which machinery is provided under the Convention.
§ Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTERIs it not a fact that in spite of the tariff truce, every country except Great Britain and, I think, the Netherlands is free to increase its tariffs, while we are not?
§ Mr. GRAHAMIt would require a very long reply to answer that. It is certainly not the case.
§ 29. Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the precise position of the Government of the United States in relation to the Commercial Convention of Geneva, and if the representative of the United States present at the Tariff Truce Conference gave any intimation of the intention of his Government to make a general increase of import duties in that country?
§ Mr. GRAHAMThe First Secretary to the American Embassy in Paris was instructed by the United States Government to be present in Geneva for the period of the Conference and to associate 738 himself with the American Consulate at Geneva with a view to obtaining information regarding the developments of the Conference. The United States Government did not, therefore, participate actively in the Conference, nor were they a party to any of its decisions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. HANNONWas not the reason of the United States representative being present at the Conference to obtain information in order to see how far American tariffs could be raised against the rest of the world?
§ Mr. GRAHAMI should not like to say that. America has been represented by observers at many international conferences within recent years.
§ Mr. HANNONIs it not a fact that, practically immediately following the Convention being signed, the Tariff Commission of the United States proceeded to submit a scheme for an increase of their tariffs?
§ Mr. GRAHAMI should like to look into that. I am strongly of the impression that a revision was already under consideration.
§ 30. Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade why certain countries, parties to the Commercial Convention of Geneva, may increase their import duties, without breaking the international treaty, on giving 20 days' notice; and if he will explain why this privilege has not been conferred on Great Britain, the largest industrial country which subscribes to the Convention?
§ Mr. GRAHAMThe Convention distinguishes between those States which consolidate a substantial proportion of their duties by treaty and those which do not. The majority of European countries fall into the first category, but this country and a few others into the second. Article 1 of the Convention, which in effect prolongs the commercial treaties, would not bind this country not to increase duties, but does to that extent bind the "consolidating" countries. In order to preserve the balance of obligations, it is provided that the "consolidating" countries, so far as their duties are not fixed by treaty, will in general give 20 days' notice of any increase they may make, and enter upon 739 negotiations with an aggrieved State to restore the balance; while the "non-consolidating" countries, subject to no treaty obligation fixing rates of duty, undertake not to increase protective duties, but may increase their fiscal duties without notice or negotiation.
§ Mr. HANNONDid the right hon. Gentleman take any exception to this proposal to give the 20 days' arrangement to consolidated countries while excluding this country to whom an increase of tariff in the interests of industry is of supreme importance in the future?
§ Mr. GRAHAMThat matter was very fully discussed. I cannot give the details in reply to supplementary questions, but the whole object was to get a balance in these arrangements, and I think that we did that very successfully.
§ Mr. HANNONAnd we suffer by the balance.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMay I ask a question which is susceptible of a simple and short answer? Has this country the same liberty to increase its duties that the Protocol and Convention accords to other countries?
§ Mr. GRAHAMI think that would substantially be the case, but we made it perfectly plain that it was not the policy of this country to embark upon Protection at all.