THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1938 BRITISH FARM POLICY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23082, 6 July 1938, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1938 BRITISH FARM POLICY

Why Mr. Chamberlain's references :o his Government's agricultural policy in a speech reported this morning should have angered British farmers is not clear at this distance. The assertion of the British Prime Minister that, to grow all the food Britain needed at Home, would ruin the Empire and certain foreign suppliers, and destroy their purchasing power—such an assertion cannot be controverted. Neither could reactions be avoided against British export industries nor, in the long run, against British farming itself. Self-sufficiency in food production is not regarded as a practicable objective for the industrial Britain of to-day and has been abandoned as a policy for almost a century. In the war years and since, however, successive Governments have sought to encourage agriculture so that a higher proportion of domestic consumption would be home-produced. For all that has been done, Britain finds herself to-day, compared with 1914, with 4,000,000 more mouths to fill and 4,000,000 fewer acres under the plough. Nevertheless the loss is not as heavy as these figures suggest because there has been a notable swing-over from arable to pastoral farming. Thus the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. "W. S. Morrison, has been able to show that in the last seven years, although farm labourers have decreased by no less than 100,000, production has actually increased by 14 per cent. The seeming contradiction serves to emphasise farming trends that are of no little interest to New Zealand. Apart from that aspect, Britain finds to-day that she is growing about 40 per cent of her own food requirements. The darkening international horizon has given British farming and other interests, a pretext to advocate the adoption of special measures to stimulate domestic production as a measure of passive defence. The British Government has been farsighted enough to see, however, that security would be more hurt than helped by forcing agricultural methods. British nutritional standards would suffer, British shipping be hard hit, British export industries starved, British Dominions and colonies debilitated, and foreign suppliers forced into even deeper dependence on Germany, their one major alternative market. Thus the Baltic and Danubian countries, Denmark and, in lesser degree, Holland and certain South American Republics might be reduced to economic vassalage. In any case heavy blows would be dealt against appeasement and Britain's defensive strength. So the British Government wisely remains deaf to the crooning of self-sufficiency. Mr. Chamberlain's latest statement simply reaffirms the policy clearly stated by Mr, Morrison to the Commons over a year ago. He gave it as the Govern ment's opinion that, first, to pul agriculture on a wartime footing with all the regulations, regimenta tion and heavy costs involved woulc not be practicable nor justified ir time of peace. "The Government is equally satisfied," he added, "thai considerations of national defence would not justify a policy in peace time of stimulating agricultura production to such a pitch that the country would be faced with a highly artificial situation, which would sooner or later, have to be liquidatet if the emergency did not arise. Sue! a policy would be costly to buile up and costly to close down." H< added that the Government hac adopted a more modest objective ai the "best course" in the nationa interest. It would continue its efforts to "improve the general prosperity and efficiency of home agriculture and in particular to promote ai increase in the fertility and produc tivity of the soil." Mr. Morrison's policy is therefor* one of encouraging the norma development of agriculture. He ha: quietly dropped the aggressiv* campaign of his predecessor, Mr Walter Elliot, who achieved very little and incurred much odium wit! his complicated structure of plani and boards, quotas and duties levies and subsidies. Mr. Ellio worked for an artificial expansior at home by import restrictions ; Mr Morrison favours natural growth, ai more healthy and enduring. Mr Elliot sought to hopple oversea! competition ; Mr. Morrison is tryinf to increase British competitive power. The soundness of the lattei policy can scarcely be questioned even although it is far less spec tacular and more passive thar Mr. Elliot's. Mr. Morrison aims tc help British agriculture by reducing farmers' costs rather than by raising prices to consumers. Certain sub sidies still remain and theii aggregate cost is high, but these dc not fall on consumption. The British Government believes that the besl way to assist the farmer is tc increase effective demand for his output, a method that does nol conflict with the drive for highei nutritional standards and bettei national health. Mr. Morrison's specific measures include a campaigr to reduce the toll of stock diseases at present causing annual losses oi about £14,000,000; the supply ol cheap lime and basic slag to conserve and increase soil fertility; the fuller utilisation and improvemenl of grasslands; and the insurance ol minimum prices for the principa cereals. Along with the promotior of more efficient husbandry goes the better organisation of marketing, i sphere in which the British farmei should be able to make large gains If he can pocket a larger share o the retail price of his products many of his problems should be solved. New Zealand can therefore wish Mr. Morrison's policy ever} success. As at present formulated it contains no threat to the Dominion and, if British farming can be placed on a firmer footing fewer shafts need be aimed a 1 overseas competitors in the future