§ 72. Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, prior to the Ottawa Agreements, the imports of dressed leather from Canada, Australia, and India were 6,500,000 square feet and that they now amount to 29,500,000 square feet; that at the same dates the exports to these countries were 4,000,000 square feet in 1931 increasing to 9,500,000 square feet in 1935; and, seeing that a free market is accorded imports into this country and that in many cases prohibitive duties still operate against similar 2020 goods exported to the Dominions, he will endeavour, at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, to rectify this position in favour of the home manufacturer?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman)I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend refers. During any discussions of tariff matters with other Empire Governments, the question of the duty treatment of United Kingdom leather will be kept in mind.
§ Mr. GIBSONHas my right hon. Friend or his Department made any representations to any of the Dominions with regard to implementing Article 11 of the Ottawa Agreement, which would afford a fair competitive opportunity for our exporters in Dominion markets?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid that I cannot charge my memory as to an occasion on which that has been done, but if my hon. Friend will put a question down I shall be glad to answer it.
§ 73. Mr. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an important branch of the leather trade, namely, leather made from East India tanned hides and skins, is practically debarred from the Australian market as it cannot qualify for the preferential tariff since Australia does not regard as British, for the purpose of this tariff, any material from Empire sources other than Australia and the United Kingdom, and that this leather is therefore dutiable at the general tariff rate of 31¼ per cent.; and will he make representations to the Australian Government that all materials from Empire sources should be regarded as British for preferential tariff purposes?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is not likely to commend itself to the Commonwealth Government, as it would involve a fundamental revision of their present system for determining the qualifications for preference. If, however, he will supply me with details of any cases he has in mind, I will consider whether there is any solution of the difficulty which might be put forward.
§ Mr. GIBSONWill my right hon. Friend note that I actually give an instance in my question? Is it fair and equitable that primary products which are produced entirely within the British 2021 Empire should be treated as on the same basis as foreign manufactured goods when they are exported to Australia and should not be recognised as British?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANIf my hon. Friend will give me details of the case referred to in the question, I shall be glad to look into it.