BRITISH FARMERS

Southland Times, Issue 23664, 12 November 1938, Page 19

BRITISH FARMERS

GUARANTEED PRICES DEMANDED AGRICULTURAL POLICY DEFINED

Following New Zealand’s lead, British farmers are seeking a system of guaranteed prices for their produce, states a London correspondent writing on October 13. In a booklet, entitled “British Agriculture, 1938: Views and Recommendations of the National Farmers’ Union,” two. main proposals are made. They are:—The adoption of price insurance plans to operate whereever unduly low price levels are shown to exist; and the enforcement of effective regulation of food imports from overseas countries pending the operation of commodity councils on the lines agreed by the Empire Producers’ Conference at Sydney. A small and independent tribunal is suggested to fix prices in accordance with the cost of production. The farmer would be recouped the difference between selling and insured price by Treasury subventions. The union for, it is believed, the first time, points out that the straight tariffs which formerly were strongly advocated could be rendered ineffective by food exporting countries subsidizing their growing or debasing their currencies. IMPORTS REGULATIONS The union’s second demand for strict quantitative regulation of imports in accordance with the demands of the British market, thus ensuring no disastrous breaks in prices, should, it is claimed, limit demands made on the Treasury under the price insurance plan. A number of other suggestions are made to restore fertility to the land and increase employment. These include:— The Ministries of Agriculture, Health, and Labour, and the Board of Education to set up a joint standing committee to examine all aspects of rural life and report on possible advances, A comprehensive survey to be made of the capabilities of the land of Great Britain, to discover what expansion is possible. An immediate short-term credit system to enable farmers to renew equipment and construct and renovate farm buildings. Acceleration of farm electrification and reduction in the cost of connecting farms with supplies. POLICY’S OBJECTIVE Briefly, the policy set out in the booklet is designed to give confidence and stability to the industry, and so fit it to expand production at once should an emergency arise. It is pointed out that the straight tariff was “jettisoned by the Ottawa Agreements Act,” the levy subsidy “scrapped some time in 1936,” and the Import Duties Advisory Committee “was hamstrung so far as major agricultural applications are concerned.” Price insurance plans combined with quantitative regulation of imports, therefore, became “the only alternative to a levy-subsidy policy.” But it is added: “Failing its adoption, the union would feel bound to press for the immediate revision of our commercial treaty commitments so as to enable agriculture to exercise its rights under the Import Duties Act in the same way as the motor industry was enabled to do under the Finance Act, 1938.” The booklet shows that both the Government and the Opposition recognize the necessity for effective protection of home agriculture. Both sides agree on the need for regulating imports, and that subsidies may properly be employed to secure such price levels as will give farmers and farm workers a fair standard of living and encourage the industry’s development. AGITATION BY BRANCHES Agitation to secure a reduction of the imports of New Zealand and Australian lamb continues in country districts, and a number of branches of the National Farmers’ Union has passed resolutions calling ■ upon the Minister of Agriculture to take action. The Rugby branch of the union recently urged that the import position should be watched week by week, and that the National Farmers’ Union should “take action with the Government immediately imports are in excess of those allowed by the Gentleman’s Agreement with Australia and New Zealand.” One member declared that the position of the United Kingdom’s sheep and lamb industry continued to be deplorable. Notwithstanding the assurance given by the Minister of Agriculture that the allocation of imports from Australia and New Zealand would be reduced by 400,OOOcwt during the current year as compared with last year, the imports from these countries for the first seven months of the year showed an increase of 242,299 cwt. A resolution had been passed by the National Farmers’ Union, he said, stating that “a system of supply regulations which permits of increases of this nature has a disastrous effect on the market for home produce and demands immediate readjustment.”