DUTY ON BEEF

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23083, 8 January 1937, Page 8

DUTY ON BEEF

FOREIGN MEAT AFFECTED i From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON, Dec. 19. The British Livestock Industry Bill is to be introduced to. Parliament on January 19. As a preliminary, two resolutions imposing duties on foreign veal and beef were discussed in the House of Commons this week, and met with little encouragement from Labour members. They took the view that tha proposal was one of transferring the burden of subsidy from the Treasury, which had borne it hitherto, to the poorest sections of the community, since, roughly, 50 per cent, of the meat consumed in Great Britain was imported, chilled or frozen. Briefly, the Government's policy of imposing a moderate duty on foreign beef and veal, combined with a subsidy to the home producer, is designed to preserve a proper balance between the interests of the British farmer and the consumer, and, at the same time, to safeguard British oversea trade.. The estimated revenue from the duties, rather more than £3,000,000 a year, is not expected to cover the future cost of the cattle subsidy. Imports from the dominions are duty free, since the dominions attach special importance to the beef industry. It is desired to secure their participation in the scheme for the orderly regulation of supplies to the British market. The duties come into force immediately, and their effect is that from December 16, 1936, imported beef and veal not of Empire production will be charged at the rate of 3d per lb for chilled meat and 2-3 d per lb for meat other than beef and veal. For boned or boneless beef and veal and edible offals 20 per cent, of the value of the goods will be imposed. A Labour view expressed by Mr T. Williams was that the duties are the most outrageous aspect of the Government's long term policy. He said that there hod been two years of direct financial ass'strmce from the Treasury, and now it was asked that the burden should be transferred from the Treasury to the poorest section of the community. Unconditional subsidies were always bad, and agriculture itself did not welcome them. While the potential demand for high-quality beef in Britain was almost unlimited the actual demand, determined by the incomes of the people, must of necessity be limited. Tmuorts since 1934 had been practically stationary, and, therefore, if there h«ud been any movement in the market at Home, due either to surplus or .shortage, the Home producers were wholly responsible. In fact, the Home producer had flooded his own market, and prices had consequently fallen. Last year. 133,000 tons was produced in excess of the production for 1933, and that increase was continuing, while the price level continued to fall. The price level was decreasing, not because of Argentina, New Zealand, or Australia, but because there was hot control of production in Britain. After two years of direct financial assistance where was the increased stability, or the increased employment, in the beef industry? The only reply was these resolutions, to increase the sum which was to be given to that branch of the agricultural industry, and that was not a policy. Roughly, 50 per cent, of the meat consumed by the whole nation was imported, chilled or frozen, and the people who would have to pay this duty were not the section who could afford to buy high-quality home-pro-duced meat, but the poor. This transfer of the burden from the Treasury, or the rich consumer, to the poor consumer was one of the biggest crimes which this Government had committed.

Sir A. M. Samuel (Conservative) said that the vulnerability of British investments in the Argentine had prevented Britain putting a larger amount of duty upon their meat so as to help British agriculture. He did not think the duty was enough. Argentine people had treated England badly with regard to the handling of her business, and they had treated her railways very badly. Mr Lambert (Lib. Nat.) said that the tax would be gravely disappointing to the agricultural industry. The duty would go only a little way towards helping the industry. It was not nearly enough. It was not sufficient on beef coming from foreign countries, while beef coming from the dominions should alsr be taxed. DOMINIONS' POSITION

Mr D.orman-Smith (Con.) regretted that the dominions were not going to pay anything for the use of the British market. The time would come when those in authority would be forced to consider more closely how they could expand the purchasing power of the public, but a lot of well-entrenched vested interests would have to be shattered before that was done. He could not see why agriculture should not have the same type of protection as was enjoyed by other industries.