The Gisborne Times FRIDAY, APRIL 12. 1935. INSULATING THE HOME PRODUCER: A DIFFICULT PROBLEM.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12527, 12 April 1935, Page 4

The Gisborne Times FRIDAY, APRIL 12. 1935. INSULATING THE HOME PRODUCER: A DIFFICULT PROBLEM.

In a recent speech in the House o-f Commons, the British .Minister for Agriculture averred that the main task of the Home government, was to safeguard the producers of the United Kingdom. He .went on po say that, so long as the domestic producers were insulated' the Dominions and foreign nations need nop limit their supplies to Britain. The policy for which lie stands is. of course, cn 0 which will provide by means ot a. levy on overseas products, a pool sufficiently large to enable Home producers to obtain a subsidy which, will assist to make their operations profitable. His is, in short, a policy of control and of subsidy in the case of farm production at. Home. It is, perhaps too early, as yet, to suggest how the plan is likely to work onp as far as the Homeland itself is concerned. If one may. however, be permitted to judge from the results of the operations of thte British Milk Board the chances are that the scheme will defeat itself. There are, it will bo agreed, two skies to the question—how the producer fares and the position of the consumer It may frankly be admitted that the control and subsidy plan is proving most helpful to the domestic producer. Since the Milk Board came into milk production at Home has' increased by 8,000,000 gallons a month. This state of affairs has arisen on account of tho fact that milk producing has become a more remunerative industry. Many fanners today find H more profitable to produce milk than to produce beef even although a subsidy is paid in both cases, leaving the last 12 months, British, banks have handled about £55.000.000 on behalf of the Milk Board and one happy result has bfeeh thftt hot a, single dairy pro'difepr— -and there are 155.000 of them—contracted a bad debt. The Milk Board, it seems, does not pay out monthly cheques to the registered milk pfodticefs f it simply hands over lump sums to the. various 'banking corporations through which ft operates and they, in ttVm, erectt the farmers’ account's at the .. i-ocal branches. It will thus be seen that tho hanks know exactly how their fanner clients arc Taring and hew they al’p likely td faro aVicl; ih coll; - soquhtieft applications fdr Waits for development purposes nri. today invariably "most ’sympathetically considered.” So ’much Tor the producer’s side of the story. 'Oh the dtlfcr. liafid it is .bein'g 'found- that the, action of tho Aliilc Bfinrci m >hab)W£y "the producer and, in turn, the distributor

secure a higherreturn lias led to a diminVitibiL in respect of consumption. Today,, a considerable proportion of the production cannot ho sold to the public and requires t-o bo handed' over to factories for conversion into butter, cheese, milk powder oondcn.hed' milk. If the Tnianufa'ctured commodities are to h 4 readily disposed of at a profitable price--levely it - must mean th at; if production becomes considerable, tire government will require to curb the importation of Outside supplies. The Elliot plan therefore bristles av’ 1 ' problems not only for the Marketing Boards hut also for the Board of Trade and for the Dominions Office.