Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Levy or Quota on Meat?

Varying of Agreements

AVILL PARTIES CONSENT?

United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph.—-Copyright. LONDON, March 6.

The White Paper on the meat trade points out that tho world depression has caused a disproportionate fail in agricultural prices. Meat is specially affected by tho expansion of overseas production, in some cases stimulated by subsidies. It is clearly impossible for the British Government to acquiesce in a situation threatening the ruin of tho British livestock industry.

Britain’s net production of meat has remained practically unchanged for 25 years. The population in the meantime has increased by 10 per cent., and the agricultural population has declined by 14 per cent.; and Britain’s meat imports from ail sources have increased by 93 1-3 per cent. The development of inter-imperial trade is admittedly of primary importance, but as tho Empire is unable to absorb even the major part of Britain’s exports, it is essential that foreign countries take a substantial part of those exports. A Levy, Subject to Consent. It is the British Government’s firm intention to safeguard tho position of the United Kingdom’s livestock industry. The only practicable means at present available is a drastic reduction of imports from all sources. If, however, tho Dominions concerned and Rhodesia and Argentina will consent to necessary variations in their agreements, it would be possible to deal with tho situation by tho imposition of a levy with or without a measure of supply regulation. The question therefore arises whether, with the consent of tho Governments concerned, a levy should be imposed forthwith as an alternative to a drastic reduction of imports. The Australian Dress Association says that, concurrent with the publication of Dr. Dago’s and Mr. J. H. Thomas’ statements, the White Paper makes the situation regarding meat imports more lucid than at any time in the past three or four months’ discussions. It may bo assumed that Britain's preference for a levy, as clearly expressed in the White Paper, is duo to the country’s general antagonism to quota schemes. More Lucid, Not More Hopeful. Mr. Elliot’s policy is obviously to allow the extent of imports of meat to find its proper level under the combined influence- of a levy and the undesirability of depressing the market by excessive supplies, which exporters must regulate among themselves.

While the situation is now easier to grasp, it cannot be described as much more hopeful. There can be no certainty of a general Empire adhesion to the policy of a levy instead of a drastic quota system, while Argentina will not lightly forego her advantages until the expiration of her agreement with Britain.

The British Government’s opinion is that a levy on imported meat, with preference to the Dominions, will afford the best long-term solution of the problem. The possibility cannot be excluded that additionally some regulation of the meat market may be desirable in the interests of producers at particular times, but the Government cannot regard as a satisfactory permanent arrangement a system under which responsibility for the regulation of the market will rest with them alone. Their view is that the British Government’s intervention should be limited to the collection of a levy and the application of proceeds to homo industry, leaving overseas producers themselves to regulate their exports. Failing an agreement on the levy, the Government will have no alternative but to take steps to regulate during the existing agreements the quantities of imports to the extent necessary to restore livestock to a remunerative level.

Subsidy Not Permanent.

In order to give the Governments concerned a further opportunity to consider the problem, Britain is continuing tho subsidy temporarily, but the Government has no intention of cither doing so indefinitely or of acquiescing in the ruin of tho livestock industry.

Tho Government desires at the earliest moment to operate tho levy system with preference to the Dominions, leaving overseas producers to regulate their own exports. The questions, therefore, arose whether the Governments concerned would consent to an immediate levy on imports as an alternative to a drastic reduction of imports, which is otherwise necessary; whether import regulation should cease from the date of the imposition of the levy or after a transitional period during which moderate regulation would be maintained; finally, whether the levy should be imposed on all meat or only beef, veal, and live cattle.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Thomas, in answer to a questioii on the tabled meat White Paper, made a statement almost identical with that of Dr. Earle Page. >Sir P. A. Harris (L.) asked: “Have you consulted Mr. Runeiman on the subject, as he gave a pledge to the electors not to tax meat?’’

Mr. Thomas replied: “The White Paper includes Mr. Runeiman’s views.’’

Dominions’ Share Just the Halfpenny ALL RESTRICTIONS GO Per Press Association. CANBERRA, March 7. The Acting Prime Minister, Dr. Earle Page, has announced that tho policy recently proposed by the British Government for the control of meat importations into the United Kingdom had been misunderstood. The British proposals did not, as the Commonwealth Government had believed, contemplate maintenance of restrictions on importa-

tions of foreign meat, but contemplated tho removal of all restrictions. This policy was not acceptable to the Commonw'ealth Government, and no agreement had therefore been reached.

From Dr. Earle Page’s statement it is now clear that, beyond the proposed levy of Id per pound on foreign, and Id per pound on Empire meat, Australian exports will have no protection against foreign competition.

Eestrictions Placed on Export of Porker Pigs

AFFECTS CARGOES ARRIVING * BEFORE JUNE'3O

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night. The Gazette issued to-night contains an Order-in-Council restricting the export of porker pigs to the United Kingdom in any vessel’ scheduled to arrive in the United Kingdom on or before June 30. In the meantime permits to export will be granted only..in respect of carcases slaughtered on or before March 7.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MT19350308.2.58

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 56, 8 March 1935, Page 7

Word Count
982

Levy or Quota on Meat? Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 56, 8 March 1935, Page 7

Levy or Quota on Meat? Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 56, 8 March 1935, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert