ANSWER EVADED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22242, 30 January 1947, Page 5

ANSWER EVADED

FOOD _POLICY HOME PRODUCTION EFFECT ON DOMINIONS (From E. G. Webber, Special Representative of N.Z. Press Assn.) LONDON, Jan. 28. The Dominions’ primary producers arc likely to have a very close personal interest in the Agriculture Bill now in the process of its first reading in the House of Commons. Inevitably the bill raises the question of the place of the British farmer in relation to the Dominions’ farmer in the British market. It is a question which, understandably, the Government does not appear ready to answer at present. It was put twice to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. T. Williams, in the course of the opening of the debate on the first reading, on both occasions by Captain Crookshank (Conservative— Gainsborough), who led the Opposition’s preliminary attack upon the measure. Minister's Silence On the first occasion Captain Crookshank asked Mr. Williams point blank: "Do you, or don’t you, agree that whatever happens the home producer must come first and the Empire producer second?” Mr. Williams, gazing straight ahead, made no reply despite obvious promptings by neighbours on the Government benches. On the second occasion, Captain Crookshank asked whether, if the Minister was prepared to agree that the

home producer must be the first consideration, he would adhere to that attitude when the question of Imperial preferences came up for revision in conformity with the provisions of the American loan? Again, Mr. Williams did not reply. The bill has three main provisions. It proposes to guarantee prices and markets for specified periods by machinery still to be devised, it proposes to give the Government the right to supervise inefficient farmers and, if necessary, to dispossess them from the land, and thirdly, it proposes to give the State power to undertake agricultural development work which is beyond the resources of private capital. The Opposition has already indicated that it is substantially in agreement with the Government on the question of guaranteed prices and markets, though it would like to know more about how this is to be achieved, hut it is highly critical of the wide powers which the bill seeks to give the Government, Inefficient Farms Supervision Mr. Williams sought to allay these fears by making plain that the supervision of inefficient or unproductive farms would be carried out by the farmers’ war agricultural committees, that in cases of alleged inefficiency the farms in question would be worked under supervision for one year, and that only if there was no improvement at the end of that time, would the owner or occupier be dispossessed. Even then, said the Minister, a dispossessed farmer would have the right of appeal to a special land tribunal, whose decision would be final and binding upon the Government. He contended that under this system a farmer could only be supervised and judged by his peers, but the Opposition expressed apprehension about the degree of influence the Government would exercise in the matter .particularly i n the appointment of the land tribunals. At. present the British Government was paying roughly £400,000,000 annually in food subsidies in order to keep down prices of food to the British consumer and to pay the prices asked by home and overseas producers. About half this sum goes to the British farmer, and half to the overseas producers, including the Dominions. Question To Be Pursued

It is recognised that this artificial regulation of prices imposes a very heavy burden upon the British taxpayer, and it was suggested bv one of the Opposition speakers in the debate that the Government should take steps to put the food position in its true light by removing the subsidies and raising the price ot food. It is already plain from the course of the debate that the Opposition will

pursue the question of the home versus overseas producer. In this connection Mr. Williams said: “We want cheap food both at home and abroad—wherever we can get it—but we don't want cheap men either here or elsewhere.” This statement may perhaps be taken to imply that the Government is reconciled to the fact that the increased costs of agriculture both at home and abroad must be reflected in food prices. Whether this Is better done by increasing food prices to the consumer, or by levying taxation to pay subsidies, is possibly an academic point- In the preamble to the bill it speaks of “such parts of the food of the nation which if is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom." The Opposition attacked this generalisation and asked the Government to indicate specifically what part of the market it proposes to allocate to the home producer and what part to the overseas producer. Further pressure for a more specific description of the respective shares of the British market to he allocated to British farmers aVicl to overseas farmers will obviously be exerted as the debate proceeds.