Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1935. BUTTER IN BRITAIN.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 239, 23 July 1935, Page 4

Ashburton Guardian Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1935. BUTTER IN BRITAIN.

The poll that is to be taken in Britain next month on the subject of the milk marketing scheme is said to be the outcome of recent criticism of the Board’s policy, for the period for which the Act provided was two years from April, 1934. The milk marketing scheme, under which a subsidy is paid, has one main purpose, apparent on analysis, and admitted by commentators. Its aim is to assist the dairy farmer by keeping up the price of milk sold for ordinary household consumption, referred to in all official transactions as liquid milk. Other utilisation of milk is important in so far as it absorbs surplus: output above that required for household supply. The extreme depression of prices for butter and cheese in the main affected the British farmer indirectly, not directly. It tended to turn milk away from such purposes, to glut the market for household sale, to cause pricecutting and consequent disorganisation. For a time, from the autumn of 1933, there was in operation a scheme on a regional basis, under which the returns for liguid milk and for milk used in manufacture were pooled, and the prices for the two kinds of supply were equalised. Though organised in a very different fashion, the scheme in principle had much in common with the Paterson butter stabilisation plan operated in Australia. Like that plan, it had the tendency to encourage production to such an extent that the return, even after equalisation, would be unsatisfactory to the farmer. In March lest year, the plan of direct subsidy from the public funds came into force. The pending vote is of interest to New Zealand as it may have an effect on her trade in butter with Britain. When the matter was the subject of an official statement fifteen months ago, it was announced that quota restrictions were not the immediate concern of Britain. There was, however, nothing made public here to say that the subsidy arrangement would be regarded throughout the two years as a complete and satisfactory substitute for a quota. Britain merely said that quantitative regulation was not any immediate concern of the Government; not that it would be no concern for the period of the subsidy scheme. This distinction is important. The short history of the milk marketing system shows the authorities to be feeling their way forward, adopting and testing various devices, altering them if circumstances demand a change. So the resolution to put aside import regulation may be modified, and the need for a quote may be urged again before the two years of the subsidy scheme are over.