LIVESTOCK BILL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22687, 27 March 1937, Page 15

LIVESTOCK BILL

THE ENGLISH FARMER PERMANENT ASSISTANCE NEW CENTRAL ABATTOIRS [from OUR OWN correspondent] LONDON. March 3 Somo New Zealand farmers may have regarded with a slight uneasy interest the introduction of the English Livestock Bill for the improvement of the industry, but the bill is decidedly not before its time, and New Zealanders may have 110 fears that an infringement on their "rfglit" will follow. It should be realised, as undoubtedly it is, that the problems confronting those responsible for the direction of British fanning are vastly different from the complexities of Dominion primary production. It is true that the fear of war, and a consequent blockade, food shortage, and ration cards, lurks in the background. It is equally true that the lot of the English farmer is not congenial, that lie faces fierce competition, and that 93 per cent of the nation is indifferent to his welfare to the extent that they are not directly dependent for their livelihood on the land. Again, a proportion of English farming is backward when compared with New Zealand practice, and there is a lot of dead wood in some of its organisation that could be removed with benefit. £5,000,000 a Year Guaranteed The bill makes permanent the temporary assistance given in 1934. It guarantees £5,000,000 a year to producers of beef cattle, an increase of about £1.000.000. It will probably allow of a basic subsidy of from 5s per cwt. with an increase on super quality cattle of from 2s to 3s per cwt. A permanent commission is to be appointed to administer the subsidy. It will have comprehensive powers over livestock markets. It may pass by-laws in markets, and, subject to certain provisions, close redundant markets altogether. It has power to establish, with the assistance of a Treasury grant of £250,000, three experimental centralised abattoirs in districts not yet specified. A tariff of per lb. is to be placed on Argentine meat. Despite these provisions, there is no confidence among farmers that the Livestock Industry Bill will, at any rate in the near future, make beef production profitable again. Some benefit should result, at any rate, from the regulation of the English livestock markets. The system in many districts is hopelessly out of date, governed by ancient charters, which perpetuate the continuation of several markets in neighbouring towns where one efficient modern market would serve to better advantage. Prices Considered Low Again, though many of the thousands of private abattoirs are well built and well run throughout the country, there are thousands which are not, so that the establishment of central slaughterhouses is regarded as an interesting experiment. The English system of abattoirs is different from that in Scotland, where the average municipality has its slaughterhouse in which all butchers must kill their stock. The question has been asked why should this not be done in England, since it would save public authorities endless time in inspecting stock slaughtered on private premises. Even the most ardent supporters of the bill, including the Minister himself, do not claim that it will bring real prosperity to the livestock farmer, who blames the Government for the inadequate help given by subsidy and protection. Even allowing for the subsidv, the index figure for fat cattle for" 1935 and 1936 was approximately 105 (taking the years 1911-1913 at 100). In view of post-war costs this trifling increase is considered not enough, and that it does not give the stock farmer a fair deal. According to the Ministry's returns, the average price of fat cattle, first and second qualitv, was 35s 7d per cwt.; 5s per cwt. subsidy makes this only 40s 7d. The critics say that the lowest price that any expert of authority has dared to quote for production costs is 48s per cwt. Rural Workers Declining It is believed that costs in the immediate future are not likely to decrease. With the returning wave of industrial prosperity, it is in many almost impossible to secure efficient labour, even at rates considerably higher than the basic Wages Board figure. In one district a new factory is enabled by a high tariff to pay unskilled men £3 a week. No producer of livestock at anything like the prices now ruling, 110 matter how may be, could do this without going bankrupt. There has been a further decline ot 4.9 per cent in the number of rural workers in the year 1936, as compared with 1935, which followed a decline of 2.3 per cent in that year as compared with 1934. When, it is asked, is this rot to stop? At such a time as this, with the world in turmoil, this denudation of the countryside is more than serious. Those who worry most point out that at more than one period in the last war Britain was 111 great danger because of the shortage of food supplies. After 19 years, though it was said that never again could England afford to allow such a position to arise, she is worse, not better, off. When these various points are borne in mind it is plain that the English livestock industry requires every assistance, that is designed to improve the condition of the Home farmer rather than to set up Dominion barriers. At the same time, it is an unfortunate fact that many English farmers do frown upon Dominion importations and hold the erroneous opinion that these imports are merely dumped surpluses. Jt was, perhaps, this opinion which Lord Bledisloe had in mind recently when he suggested the establishment of a Home and Empire agricultural consultative committee to discuss matters of policy.