Letters to the Editor
SAFEGUARDING FOR IRON AND STEEL
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—When reading the article in the Spectator on Saturday, October 13th, on the above subject, I at once realized that the writer had unfortunately not had an opportunity of con- sulting those interested in this particular industry, or those of the industries such as engineering and shipbuilding, which are closely allied.
In the first place the writer dwells principally on the raw material ; the particular items where the tonnage of imports has recently so very considerably exceeded that of say the year 1913 are among the finished and semi-finished products.
Take the following figures for example :—The combined tonnage of steel sheet bars, wire rods, steel bars and angles, girders and beams, during August of 1928 equals 112,137 tons, against 56,941 tons, the monthly average of the year 1913. This you will notice closely approximates double the quantity, and represents over 660,000 tons increase of imported material. These are products in which a consider- able proportion of foreign labour is included, and if produced in this country would indeed help to lessen our unemployment figures, not only in the steel industry, but also in those of coal and coke.
We who are firmly of the opinion that some branches at least of this steel trade should come under the purview of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, aim principally at the lessening of unemployment, and the safeguarding of the existing stand- ard of living enjoyed by our workers.
The writer asks the question, what would the shipbuilders and railway companies say ? I have heard many repre- sentatives of the shipbuilding interests speak in favour, and have read of no concerted action being taken by either the shipbuilders or railway managers protesting against the proposed safeguarding.
Why should it be assumed that any prices would advance when in all other trades where safeguarding assistance has been given prices have remained the same or have been reduced ?
What would the farmers say ? So far as agriculture is con- cerned I believe the farmers fully realize that they have everything to gain by the increased purchasing power of the industrial population when the basic industries are assisted into a more prosperous condition, and the risk of the few implements which they need costing them more is extremely slight.
Recently the chairman of the largest group of firms manu- facturing agricultural implements in this country was reported to have said that though he had been a lifelong Free Trader up to the present, " he was bound to admit that Free Trade did not suit the circumstances of the time, and that having tried Free Trade and it having failed, let us try what safeguard- ing will do, and I for one do not fear it."
The writer states that since safeguarding was introduced unemployment has appreciably increased. Surely it is a well-known fact that in many of those trades which have
received only benefit of safeguarding or the McKenna duties, not only has unemployment decreased, but many additional factories have been built, and considerably more men employed. It is in the other basic industries such as iron,- steel, coal, &c., where the increased unemployment is found.
Referring to the writer's appeal to the supporters of the
League of Nations, and the report of the Economic Conference, I would think that until the tariff barriers can by such in- fluence be removed in other countries, it is no longer useful for the British to go on starving our factories, and find employ- ment for workers elsewhere. We shall exert no less influence in removing these barriers if we prove to the business com- munity of other nations that they will not be allowed to continue obtaining advantages in trade which our inaction and costly altruism gives them.—I am, Sir, &c., Burton Cliff House, Lincoln. LOMB W. SMITH.
Previous page
