MEAT FOR BRITAIN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 111, 20 February 1935, Page 5

MEAT FOR BRITAIN

WARNING TO DOMINION. NO RESPONSIBILITY TAKEN. STATEMENT BY MR ELLIOT, (United Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, February 18. Introducing .in the House of Commons a .resolution to extend the subsidy to British cattle producers, in view of the low level of prices, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr W. E. Elliot) stated that the British Government had come to the conclusion that while some regulation of the market might be found desirable to prevent wide fluctuations of supplies and prices, it could not accept sole responsibility for regulation of the market. Those who were going to benefit from regulation must co-operate in its working or else it would be up to the people of Great Britain to take steps to look after the Home producer. There was-a great deal to be said for orderly markets, but this was a task which, in the opinion of the British Government, could best be undertaken by the oversea suppliers themselves. Oversea producers should be left free to send such quantities to the British market :as; they themselves desired. The Government maintained that regulation of imports, which other countries wished to undertake, as in the case of wheat, must be hammered out in the first instance by those countries themselves. . ™ *«• + In reply-to a question, Mr Llnot said: "We want the Dominions, and foreign suppliers to send freely as, long as we can insulate the British producer." ", ; . , Sir Percy Harris (Liberal) inter, preted this "statement as meaning that the policy of quantitative regulation (otherwise quotas) would be abandoned and that a levy or duty on imported meat was now the Government's policy. Mr Elliot agreed that his statement; had been correctly interpreted.

THE DUTY ACCEPTED.

AUSTRALIA COMPROMISES. MELBOURNE, February 19. The Federal Cabinet has decided to r.gree in principle to the British Government's proposal to control importation of meat into the United Kingdom. The Minister of Commerce (Dr. Ea'rle Page) said that the main points in the British proposal to which Cabinet had agreed were: ■ ' (1) There should be ncs restriction on the importation of Dominion meat; (2) Continuance of the present restrictions on foreign imports; ()3 A preferential duty Of Id a lb on foreign and id on Empire supplies. , ■ ■■•> '•■■'„ Cabinet still sought modifications or certain of the British proposals, but had agreed to the main plans as they involved no sacrifice of the Government's anti-restriction policy. This arrangement would operate until the expiration of the Anglo-Argentine agreement in 1936. The Commonwealth Government accepted the British proposals as a satisfactory alternative to imposition of a levy on meat imports in conjunction with quotas. MINISTERS PUZZLED. NO OFFER TO AUSTRALIA. (Received This Day, 11.15 a.m.) ;> LONDON, February 19. Pending cabled advice from Canberra, Ministers' are puzzled by the Press agency report'of the ' Commonwealth's acceptance of certain meat proposals. Mr W. E. Elliot, in a statement; to the "Sun-Herald" Service, said: "N 6 such proposals have been submitted to Australia. How could we give the Dominions complete freedom in meat exports with a levy of ft halfpenny per 'pound against a penny foreign, and simultaneously restrict foreign exports?"

RELATION TO HOME PRICES. MANCHESTER; PAPER'S COMMENT (Received This Day, 9.55 a.m.) ' LONDON, February 19. The "Manchester Guardian" 'says thatf perhaps the niost remarkable point arising from- the debate- regarding beef imports •' is' that although some form of quota, existed throughout 1931 and a subsidy was paid for nearly six months, the price obtained . by the home producer is worse than ever. It is plain, therefore, that the cause of the slump in prices in Britain is not simply overloading of . the market. More'important still is the iwo millions, unemployed, who cannot possibly ' off, ford British or even Dominion beef. Yet under the proposed long - termscheme a levy will l>e imposed on a restricted supply of imported beef, thus inevitably raising the price in order that the consumer of home-pro-duced meat will not have to pay more. Even the present seems a more desirable way of "saving the fanner" than that. l HOME SUBSIDY EXTENDED. BR ITTSH CONSIDER ATIONS. LONDON. February 18. Negotiations with the Dominions and other cattle-supplying countries with a. view to reaching an agreement on a long-term policy for • a

levy ixpin'or the regulation* of inv. ports are still proceeding. In the House of Commons to-day Mr Elliot moved a resolution providing for a three months' extension of the subsidy granted the United Kingdom cattle producers in view of the low level of prices. This would enable the negotiations to . continue in a friendly, atmosphere. ■'■'■.J- "-.:r'. Mr Elliot pointed out that lnrthe case of the Dominions an import duty could not be imposed without the QOii-j sent of the countries concerned -'until the expiration of the Ottawa .Agreement in August, 1937, and in.fhe case, of Argentine supplies until November, 1936. Negotiations -of Auch- far-re.|eh r ing importance could hot be ' rushed!; "The trade and Imperial issues; involved are such that it is vitally necessary that the supplying countries should feel that every po^ s i ble -consideration is being given their views,'' said M£ Elliot. . i. ■-.■• . ■; :■• "'■ --': ■ The Government's policy in■, regard to food supplies was to encourage the maximum supply of produce to consumers at the lowest prices consistent with reasonable remuneration to j Home producers. That policy had succeeded. Food consumption- was going up. , ..,,-. Mr Elliot mentioned that the publictaste was turning from beef to other forms of meat and said that the suppliers should notice that the beef market was actually shrinking. Dr. C. Addison, who followed Mr Elliot, said that the Labour Party did I not object to the producers getting a fair price for their products, but the idea of bringing this about by limitation of supplies had broken-down. The real aim should be stimulation : Of the demand. Any scheme for the stabilise ation of production should ; ■'be associated with the control of distribution , and prices through a Government.import board, which would safeguard, the i consumer. Arbitrary restriction of slipplie was bound • irritate: the Dominions and . .had already, proved futile.-rßritish Official Wireless.

TH E LEVY NOT ACCEPTED.

NEW ZEALAND'S ATTITUDfe (Per Bresa WELLINGTON, February 19. The Prime Minister (the Bt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) to-night flatly denied the accuracy of the cabled report from London that the New Zealand Government has suggested it could agree to a levy on imported beef into, Great Britain, but not mutton. .",,..,',...,; Cabinet, Mr Forbes stated, had; considered . the Imperial Government's proposals in a general.way-and he/and Mr Coates had discussed various ' -aspects of the position with members'-'ttf the Meat Producers' Board who are in Wellington, "but we. haye come, to no decisions whatever," he added, ''our discussions, so 'far, being oh..general lines. •;;.-■'. .; ' : v.

"It - may ultimately .resolve, itself into a decision that no final agreement will bo settled until there has been' a further conference in England, because this arrangement will be of the very greatest importance to the Dominion and full time must be taken for its consideration. As Mr Elliot says, this matter cannot be rushed." ■