BRITISH CATTLE INDUSTRY

Evening Star, Issue 21974, 9 March 1935, Page 13

BRITISH CATTLE INDUSTRY

EXTENSION OF PRESENT SUBSIDY BILL BEFORE COMMONS Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, March 8. (Received March 9, at 9 a.m.) In the House of Commons Mr Elliot, in moving the second reading of the Cattle Industry Emergency Provisions Bill, explained that it was an interim measure extending for three months the bill passed, in July. A question of such importance to the dominions and overseas countries must be exhaustively examined before action was taken. The best method of dealing with the situation was a short extension of the present arrangement. “We are acting for the benefit of all concerned, and the interests of the overseas supplier are bein'* meticulously considered, he said. The Government did not propose to alter the provisions of the Bill. Mr Elliot added that the necessity for full consideration and avoidance ot hasty action was evidenced by tb© tact that even after long discussions with the representatives of the dominions a misunderstanding arose in. one case. This did not lead to serious consequences and had been cleared up, but until Mr Lyons arrived it was impossible to continue detailed discussion ot a long-term policy. . Mr C. Addison (Labour) in moving rejection of the Bill, said there was nothing in the Bill to show that the producer would get the money .he was intended to get nothing to increase consumers’ purchasing power,. and no benefits to pass on to the agricultural was read a second time by 120 votes to 23. GOVENMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY TO HOME PRODUCERS (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, March 8. (Received March 9, at noon.) In moving the second reading of the Cattle Bill in the House °f Commons, Mr Elliot said there was no doubt that, but for the assistance provided by the present Act, which was due to expire on March 31, home cattle producers would already be facing disaster. Britain had a special responsibility towards meat exporters, since she remained easily the largest consumer of overseas supplies. No one could accuse Britain of narrow economic nationalism in hfer meat policy, but she could not neglect the importance ot the home live stock industry, which was also an important customer for many other British industries, including shipping used to bring store cattle from Ireland for fattening in England. QUEENSLAND MINISTER'S COMMENT BRISBANE, March 9, (Received March 9, at 11 a.m.) The Queensland Minister of Agriculture (Mr Bulcock) said the levy of id per lb on Empire meats would create a tragic position for the cattlemen of Australia. NEW ZEALAND'S DECISION OPINION IN BRITAIN LONDON, March 8. (Received March 9, at 12.30 p.m.) New Zealand’s rejection, closely following Dr Earle Page’s reply, has caused widespread feeling that the levy is as “ dead as mutton.” Ministers are reserving considered opinion pending examination of the replies but regarding rqstriction, Government quarters are, adamant in repeating more emphatically that they stand by the White Paper as plainly stating Britain’s policy. If the dominions decline the levy the only alternative is drastic restriction, which Britain would enforce on July 1.