BRITAIN’S FOOD SUPPLIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1934, Page 7

BRITAIN’S FOOD SUPPLIES

BINGLEY MEAT REPORT

LIMITATION OF IMPORTS

[by CABLE —PBESS ASSN. COPYRIGHT.

(Recd. April 17, 1.40 p.m.) LONDON, April 16

Further details of the Bingley report include proposals to improve marketing intelligence, enabling the Board to estimate at the beginning of each year the amount of homegrown available, on the basis of which the Government will allot the quotas. The Commission considers that as

the home supplies vary so little, the estimates will be possible without long-term forward contracts. It believes that the regulation of imports will eliminate seasonal fluctuations in the quantity and quality of meat, and will ensure the farmer a reasonable price.

I The farmers’ request for a minimum price is rejected, on the ground that it may upset the demand. The Government is asked to consider imposing monetary levy on all imported meat, which would be distributed among the home producers. The “Manchester- Guardian” says: The vital point in the Bingley report is the limitation of imports. If the Dominions do not agree, compulsion may be applied. The figures, however, do not prove that the fall in prices is due to excessive imports. Britain should be rather grateful, to be able to get imported meat so cheaply at a time of unemployment. High restriction of supply will not increase the

demand; on the contrary, they are likely to diminish it. The Commissioners propose to put dangerous power in the farmers’ hands. Neither the buyers nor the butchers are likely to approve of the scheme, and any government enforcing it will accept grave responsibility.

TRADERS’ WELCOME. (Received April 18, 11 a.m.) LONDON, April 17. The Meat Traders’ Associations’ Federation passed a resolution recognising the importance of many of the recommendations in th-e Bingley report, and is instructing its executive to consider the proposals in an endeavour to obtain representation on any Boards ultimately established. It also urged the Government to prohibit the importation of all low grade meat in the interests of the consumers, the English meat producers, the prestige of foreign and colonial producers, and the British meat distributors.

NO N.Z. NEGOTIATIONS.

(Recd. April 18, 1 p.m.) LONDON, April 17.

Mr Thomas, in answer to a queson, said that no negotiations had

taken place with New Zealand, aiming at the extension of the Ottawa agreement on meat, which expires on June 30, or dairy produce expiring on August 20, 1935. A White Paper was issued to-day, publishing the cablegrams exchanged with New Zealana regarding the quantitative regulation of dairy produce supplies. Dr. Burgin told a questioner that

during the year ended March 31, 48 per cent, of Britain’s dairy produce imports were foreign. \

DAIRY BOARD’S PROPOSALS.

[FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, April 17.

Although the Government has yet to consider the Dairy Board’s proposals in detail, it is believed to be extremely unlikely that the Cabinet will agree to send a Minister to England. The view taken in official circles is that, at this late stage, the Dairy Board is not in the position to accept a quota. “It is no use the Board sitting down and saying that it will accept a quota now,” said one person prominently connected with the negotiations. “Britain is not offering it.” Mr J. G. Coates was asked to-day whether it was correct that he had proposed to set up a commission of three, as substitutes for the New Zealand Dairy Board. Mr Coates replied that his views would be thoroughly, understood later, by the industry and by the public, when he placed them before them.

MR. GOODFELLOW’S REPLY

AUCKLAND, April 18,

Mr. William Goodfellow, to-day, replied to various criticisms of his tenpoints programme for the dairy industry. In regard to farm motgages, he said the only satisfactory way was for the mortgagor and mortgagee to get together. If the money raised by a penny a pound levy on local sales were wisely expended 1 , the national income would be substantially increased, and both consumer and producer would benefit. In reply to Mr. Allum, President of the Auckland Manufacturers’ Association, Mr. Goodfellow said that if New Zealand’s secondary industries were in such a bad way, despite the high tariff and high exchange, surely it was time a trial were given to low tariff policy, based upon efficiency. Answering Hon. C. J. Carrington, Mr. Goodfellow said the fact that New Zealand’ marketing methods in Britain were faulty had been repeatedly emphasised by himself and others for fifteen years. If Mr. Carrington and other legislators had been sufficiently

interested to see that the original legislation sought bv the dairy industry had been received by it, the Dairy Board would have been established on an efficient basis from the start, and the national income would already have benefited by many millions.

Mr Goodfellow said he was sympathetic with the Prime Minister in his efforts to shield his colleagues, Mr Coates and Mr Masters. Nobody had suggested there was any panic at the Dairy Conference, but he believed something worse than that would have happened if the Conference had been aware of the subsequent methods used by Cabinet to deal with the Dairy Board. The Board, undoubtedly had been subjected to extreme pressure, and statements were made by a- responsible Minister, which clearly indicated both panic and ignorance. Fortunately, after the Board had been badgered into submission, the British Government settled the matter satis-

factorily by stating that the quota was not now wanted. The critical stage had now been passed, and he was of the opinion that the growing resentment of 94 pei' cent, of the British public, who had to pay higher prices, mostly to foreigners, as the the result of the bacon quota, would prevent any further discussion of the dairy quota with the Dominions in future, if matters were allowed to rest for a year or so. A preferential tariff in favour of Empire produce, but based on reciprocal trade, was more likely. Therefore, there was urgent need for tariff and’exchange reductions to encourage British imports.

Finally, said Mr. Goodfellow, Mr. Forbes’ statements regarding the development of new markets were incorrect. As managing director of Amalgamated Dairies Ltd., he was responsible for the marketing of about 25 per cent, of New Zealand’s butter exports, and a large quantity of other produce, and he felt he was well qualified to speak on this question. The Government could depend on his company’s full co-operation in any scheme to benefit the industry, but what he very strongly objected to was the introduction of doubtful marketing experiments. Although it was possible that other and smaller markets could be developed over a long period of years, the United Kingdom was our only big customer, and there was no worth-while alternative marekt.