The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1935. The British Meat Market

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21404, 21 February 1935, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1935. The British Meat Market

Mr Walter Elliot's latest statement on the meat question resembles nothing so much as the strategic retreat of the skilful fencer. The Dominions, apparently, are standing to the letter of their rights under the Ottawa agreements and Mr Elliot, feeling that the possibilities of persuasion have been exhausted, has boldly abandoned the attempt to secure voluntary acceptance of quotas. In return for this concession he is asking the Dominions to agree to an import levy; and already the Australian Government has, with minor reservations, accepted the principle underlying the new policy. If the other Dominions follow suit, and it is difficult to see how they can avoid doing so, Mr Elliot will for the moment be in a very strong position and will, perhaps, for the first time in his eventful career as Minister for Agriculture be able to answer all his critics. He cannot now be accused of seeking to restrict the development of the meat industries in the Dominions, since he has indicated that overseas producers are to be free to send such quantities of meat to the British market as they themselves desire. The opposition in the House of Commons cannot now complain that Mr Elliot's meat proposals are calculated to raise the price of food. " The Government's policy," says Mr Elliot, and the words come a little strangely from him, "is to " encourage the maximum supply of " produce to consumers at the lowest " possible prices." The British meat grower is offered economic security by means of a subsidy; and the British taxpayer cannot grumble at the cost of the subsidy because it is borne, not by him, but by exporters in the Dominions. Yet it may be doubted whether the meat situation is as favourable as it seems for the moment. Dr. Earle Page dwells with some satisfaction upon the success of the Commonwealth Government in avoiding quantitative restriction. The victory may prove to be a barren one; and there is a passage in Mr Elliot's speech which suggests that he suspects as much. It is the passage in which he reaffirms his belief in quantitative regulation of imports as the only permanent solution of the problems surrounding the marketing of meat from the Dominions in Great Britain. He makes it quite clear, however, that, until the Ottawa agreements expire, his Government will not again raise the question of quotas. If the Dominions themselves discover, as they may very easily discover, that unrestricted imports of meat into Great Britain are after all harmful to their interests it will be for them to devise and suggest some method of control. It will not be surprising if the Dominions are driven to some such step by an excess of supplies over purchasing power and by an outbreak of price cutting generated by the British subsidy scheme.

Those whose chief interest in local body transactions is fixed upon thoir comedy and occasional farce will be pleased by the long-drawn dispute between the Riccarton Borough Council and the Christchurch Drainage Board and by the board's threat to sue the council for money said to be due. Nobody else will be pleased at all, and a great many ratepayers of both bodies will ask themselves why they should be threatened with the costs of legal proceedings to settle a question which their representatives should have settled long ago. The money involved is the 10 per cent, penalty on drainage rates collected for the board by the council, and it does not ■ seem likely that a vast sum is claimed on the one side' and held on the other. It is, in a phrase which local administrators are inclined to use with as much solemnity as statesmen or backyard hagglers, " the principle that is at stake." And as for that it does not seem that there should have been any great difficulty in getting the principle stated or established and then in applying it. However, to accept in general the report before the Drainage Board, it is the council that has promised and failed, backed and filled, and found one occasion after another for delay; while on the other hand, the board appeared oddly uncertain whether the Audi-tor-General had, or had not, charged it with " the duty " of collecting the annual dribble of 10 per cent, penalties from the borough. To go farther is unnecessary. The board, most people will agree, acted with more haste than was proper, in leaping from the report to the attack. i>o matter how long it has been foiled and fobbed off; the council, most people will agree also, has in this peremptory demand an opportunity to put itself easily and speedily in the right. It can move, with a very natural grace, to a level and correct settlement and the close of an absurd contest. It can also, of course, grow angry and sit stubbornly on the borough cash-box, waiting for the law to move. But its best victory will be not to let the minority enjoy a laugh at this spectacle.