POLICY CHANGE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1935, Page 5

POLICY CHANGE

QUOTA ABANDONMENT

BRITAIN’S MEAT IMPORTS LEVY OR DUTY PROPOSED STATEMENT IN COMMONS NEGOTIATIONS PROCEED By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright Rec 10 p.m. London, Feb. 17. The abandonment by the British Government of a policy of quantitative regulation of meat imports, or quotas, and the adoption of that of a levy or duty on imported meat was announced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. W. E. Elliot. The negotiations with the Dominions and other cattle supplying countries with a view to reaching an agreement on a long-term policy for a levy upon, or regulation of, imports is still proceeding, and Mr. Elliot moved a resolution providing for three months’ extension of the subsidy which was granted to the United Kingdom ■ cattle producers in view of the low level of prices. This would enable the negotiations to continue in a friendly atmosphere, he pointed out. In the case of the Dominions the import duty could not be Imposed without the consent of the countries concerned until the expiration of the Ottawa Agreement in August, 1937, and in the case of the Argentine supplies until November, 1936. Negotiations of such a far-reaching importance could not be rushed. Trade and Imperial issues were involved and were such that it was vitally necessary that the supplying countries should feel that every possible consideration was being given their views. The Government’s policy with regard to food supplies, said Mr. Elliot, was to encourage the maximum supply of produce to the consumers at the lowest prices, consistent with reasonable remuneration to home producers. That policy had succeeded and food consumption was going up. PUBLIC TASTE CHANGING.

Mr. Elliot mentioned that the public taste was turning from beef to other forms of meat. Suppliers should notice that the beef market was actually shrinking. Mr. Elliot said the Government had come to the conclusion that while some regulation of the market might be found desirable to prevent wide fluctuations in supplies and in prices it could not accept the sole responsibility for regulation of the market. Those who were going to benefit from regulation must co-operate in its working, or else it was the duty of the people of Britain to take steps to look after the home producer. There was a great deal to be said for orderly markets, but this was a task which in the opinion of the Government could best be undertaken by the oversea suppliers themselves. The oversea producers should be left free to send such quantities to the British market as they themselves desired. The Government maintained that the regulation of imports which other countries wished to undertake, as in the case of wheat, must be hammered out in the first instance by themselves. In reply to a question Mr. Elliot said: “We want the Dominions and foreign suppliers to send freely as long as we can insulate the home producer.” Sir Percy Harris (Liberal) interpreted the statement as meaning that the policy of quantitative regulation, or quotas, would be abandoned and that a levy or duty on imported meat was now the Government’s policy. Mr. Elliot agreed that Sir Percy Harris had correctly interpreted his statement. ATTITUDE OF LABOUR PARTY. Mr. Christopher Addison said Labour did not object to producers receiving a fair price for their produce, but the vote itself showed that the idea of bringing this about by limitation of supplies had broken down. The real aim should be stimulation of demand. Any scheme for stabilisation of production Should be associated with the control of distribution and prices through a Government import board, which would safeguard the consumer. Arbitrary restriction of supplies was bound to irritate the Dominions and had already proved futile. It is understood that Canada, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia have advised the British Government of their willingness to accept a levy on all meat, says the Sun-Herald service. New Zealand will accept a levy on beef, but not on mutton and lamb, which necessitates a very heavy levy on beef because mutton and lamb will not produce revenue. This might not be acceptable to Australia. “Conditions in the meat market are such that home grown beef is bound to sink unless they can be improved,'* says the Times. ’ “Beef in England and Wales accounts for 35 per cent, of the total agricultural production and in Scotland 54 per cent. “Mr. S. M. Bruce (Australian High Commissioner) at the World Conference said it was a confession of the bankruptcy of statesmanship to restrict consumption when so many had their needs unsatisfied, but it is hopeless for both Britain and the Dominions if agricultural prices are allowed to collapse below the cost of production.

“During the discussions with Mr. J. A. Lyons and the Dominion Prime Ministers in the spring, coherent and converging policies must be framed, reconciling the restoration of British agriculture and the home market for British goods with the development of the Dominions and the interests of British exports.”