THE MEAT DISCUSSIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 22033, 20 May 1935, Page 8

THE MEAT DISCUSSIONS.

This will be a critical week in the meat negotiations that are in progress in London. At the moment there is no* sign of agreement, and it is oven suggested that the discussions may be terminated without' definite result. It , would be a very unfortunate thing for the Empire if Such an anti-climax was reported, and it is hard to believe that a way will not be found out of the maze of Conflicting interests. In the conferences this week Britain and the dominions will be represented by Ministers who will have the power make fixed decisions on a long-term, policy. Mr MacDonald will be associated with Mr Elliot and Mr Runciman on Britain’s side, Mr Forbes and Mr Coates will act for New Zealand, Mr Lyons will have three of the Commonwealth Ministers and numerous officials in consultation with him, and South Africa and Rhodesia also will be strongly represented. Apart stands Argentina, from the economic point of view almost a dominion, whose interests also have to be considered. Having regard to its great investments in South America, Britain signed an agreement With the Argentine Government, terminable Jn November, 1936, under which British imports of Argentine chilled beef may not fall below the 1931-32 level unless it is necessary to raise prices. Naturally enough, Argentina holds to her bargain.

It is announced that Mr Elliot, in the course of an address to English farmers, said that the British White Paper on agricultural policy would not be changed. JHs Government held firmly to it, and did not intend acquiescing in the ruin of the British live stock industry. The essence of the White Paper, issued on March 6, was that it was the Government’s firm intention to safeguard the position of the United Kingdom’s live stock industry, and that the only practicable method at present available was drastic reduction of imports from all sources. If, however, the dominioils concerned and Rhodesia and Argentina would consent to the necessary variations in their agreements, it would be possible to deal with the situation by the imposition of a levy, with or without a measure of supply regulation. The question, therefore, arose whether, with the consent of the Governments concerned, a levy should be imposocl , *fox*thwitli as an alternative to drastic reduction of imports. As the Governments .concerned did not agree to the levy idea there was no escape from the difficulties by that means. In effect, the dominions opposed Mr Elliot’s plan for a levy on all imported meat in aid of the British livestock producers unless it was accompanied by an expanding quota for dominion at the expense of foreign supplies.

So far as New Zealand is concerned, it was claimed with considerable force that the levy policy -would be discriminatory against this dominion on the grounds, first, that she had lowered her tariffs on British goods more tlfcn other dominions, and, secondly, that, as a primarily mutton-raising country she would be sacrificed for the benefit of the British and other beef producers. New Zealand’s exports of mutton and lamb to the Home Country are still three times as great in volume as hexexports of beef and veal, and four or five times as great in value. The effect of such a plan, therefore, would be to tax mutton and lamb in order to subsidise the producers of beef. It has been pertinently suggested that if it is logical and legitimate to subsidise uneconomic beef producers from a tax on mutton and lamb it would be equally justifiable to do it from a tax on wine or other commodities. Australia and New Zealand interests differ in important'respects. With the development of the chilling process, the Commonwealth expects a great expansion in its beef industry, and its efforts in the meat discussions are concentrated in that direction. A dispassionate view that has been put forward, in considering the meat problem as a whole, i« that

the dominions should secure an assured second place (after the British producer) in the United Kingdom markethut that a fair opportunity for mutual trade must be left available for foreign countries.