§ 35. Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Export Duty on tin ore which has been in force in Malaya since 1901 has been abolished; if this action was taken as a result of representations made from the tin or other interests; and if he is satisfied that it will not adversely affect the tin smelting industry in Malaya.
Mr. Creech JonesThe hon. Member has been misinformed. The Export Duty on tin ore has not been abolished. What has been abolished is the additional duty on tin ore exported otherwise than for smelting in certain British territories. This action was taken because differential export duties of this kind are contrary to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the provisional application of 1193 which to the Federation of Malaya has recently been notified to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I was satisfied that the advantages of this action to the Federation of Malaya outweighed the possible disadvantages.
§ Mr. GammansIf it is the additional duty, and not the ordinary duty, which has been abolished, will the right hon. Gentleman say when that additional duty was imposed and why?
§ Mr. W. FletcherWill the right hon. Gentleman explain why this move, which is directed to the benefit of the United States and their new smelting industry, is being adopted, whereas the effect of the U.S. Schaeffer Act, which offends in exactly the same way against the international Agreement he has quoted, reacts against rubber interests in Malaya, with the result that we get a very poor deal in both ways?