MEAT POSITION OBSCURE

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21404, 21 February 1935, Page 13

MEAT POSITION OBSCURE

CLEARER THINKING URGED NEWSPAPER COMMENT ON COMMONS DEBATE (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION —BV ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH —COPYRIGHT.) (Received February 20, 11.20 p.m.) LONDON, February 20. 'The Times" says: "Not only the meat negotiations, but all trade discussions with the Dominions would be eased if the British Government could define, however roughly, the place of the agricultural industries in the economic system of Great Britain, and if the Dominion Governments could be equally clear about the development they desire for their secondary industries." The "Manchester Guardian" says: "Perhaps the most remarkable point arising out of the beef debate is that although some form of quotas existed throughout 1934 and a subsidy was paid for nearly six months, the price obtained by the home producer was worse than ever. It is plain, therefore, that the cause of the slump in British prices was not simply overloading of the market. "More important still, 2,000,000 unemployed cannot possibly afford British or even Dominion beef, yet under the proposed long-term scheme a levy will be imposed on the restricted supply of imported beef, thus inevitably raising the price. In order that the consumer of home-produced meat will not have to pay more, even the present subsidy seems a more desirable way of 'saving the farmer' than that."

AUSTRALIA'S REPORTED ACCEPTANCE ENGLISH MINISTERS PUZZLED LONDON, February 19. Pending a cablegram from Canberra, the Ministers are puzzled by the press agency report of Australia's acceptance of certain meat proposals. Mr W. E. Elliot (Minister for Agriculture), in a statement to the "Sun-Herald" service, said: "No such proposals were submitted to Australia. How could v/e give the Dominions complete freedom of meat exports, with a levy of id per lb against Id on foreign meat, and simultaneously restrict foreign exports?" DR. PAGE DECLINES TO COMMENT (Received February 20, 10.20 p.m.) MELBOURNE, February 20. Dr. Page decjined to comment on Mr Elliot's reply to his statement. He says ho will await an official statement from the British Government.