BRITAIN’S MILK BOARD

Taranaki Daily News, 20 July 1935, Page 6

BRITAIN’S MILK BOARD

OPERATIONS CRITICISED “PROGRESSIVE RUIN” FORETOLD. WILT, THE SCHEME BE ABANDONED? (Special to Daily News.) London, June 11. Milk producers in the United Kingdom do not appear enamoured of the results of the operations of the Milk Marketing Board, of which the chairman is Mr. Thomas Baxter, who Visited New Zealand a few years ago in an endeavour to arrange a system of control of. Dominion dairy ’produce exports. Criticism of the board was scathing, a reduction in the emoluments of the chairman and other members of the board was insisted upon, and the abandonment of the whole milk marketing scheme was foreshadowed. The producers had tire opportunity of expressing their views at the second annual general meeting of registered milk producers in England and Wales, held in London last week. The meeting was convened under the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme, 1933, to receive fhe report and accounts of the Milk Marketing Board and to fix the remuneration of members of the board for the year July 1, 1934, to June 30, 1935. The meeting lasted nearly five hours. The chairman’s speech was punctuated by ironical Cheers and laughter, and there were scenes of confusion when the question of the remuneration Of the board was under consideration. Mr. Thomas Baxter, chairman Of the Milk Marketing Board, presided. In the course of his speech he emphasised that the prices incorporated in the present contract showed a substantial improvement, the average price for liquid milk being Is 3 l-12d per gallon, compared with Is 2d per gallon for the previous year. Tire benefit of these higher prices had been passed on entirely to producers, and the board would continue to safeguard their interests in the future by procuring such prices as would enable the best possible returns to be Obtained. The first completed year of working this scheme had provided invaluable information in regard to the rhSin features Of the dairy industry in this Country. The total quantity of milk sdld through the board during the year was nearly 913,000,T00 gallons, of which approximately 71 per cent, was sold in the liquid market and 29 per cent, was utilised for manufacturing purposes. The average realisation value of milk manufactured during the 12 months Was 4.92 d per gallon, but with the assistance provided by the Milk Act, 1934, this Was raised by One penny per gallon to 5.92 d. The effect of the grants from the Government had been to raise the pod! prices as a whole by 3-8 d per gallon over the period under review. The average price per ' gallon throughout the country was 12.125 d. The difference between the highest and lowest pOol prices was 1.17 d per gallon. Details of milk sales disclosed a definite tendency for production to increase. The average daily quantity of milk sold, wholesale in this period had increased by nearly 18 per cent, over the corresponding amount last year. This increase was not fully anticipated, but nevertheless all supplies had been marketed. CRITICISM EMPHATIC. The chairman concluded by moving that the report and accounts be received. Many questions were asked concerning various items in the accounts and relating to the scheme hi general. Mr. West (West Sussex) read out certain items of expenditure as compared with calculations he had made. Some of the figures were received with cries Of “Shame” and whistles of astonish-, ment. ■ '■ Mr. Castle said Devonshire farmers were being strangled out of existence. The Milk Marketing Board was detrimental to them and they would be glad if it did not exist. Mr. Odgers said, that in the opinion of the dairy farmers of Devon the scheme had Wholly failed to carry out the object promised by the promoters. The future contained nothing for them under the scheme except progressive ruin. Milk produeers were at the mercy of foreign competition and every political quarrel that took place. The' scheme was rotten and economically unsound. Mr. Swain (Leicestershire) said they realised they would get a much worse price if they had not got the scheme. —(“No, no.”) Mr. Smith (Lancashire) expressed appreciation of the efficient working of the scheme.

Mr. S. Foster (general manager) replied' at length to points raised regarding the expenses Of the board, the number of regional offices, and other matters.— The balance-sheet was approved. During further discussion on the report of the board, Mr. J. Turner (Nottingham) submitted a resolution that the Milk Marketing Scheme would ultimately have to be abandoned unless the Government immediately implemented some means of augmenting the fund required to pay the deficiency between the average price of manufacturing milk and the agreed contract price in the current. year. The chairman said he could not accept the resolution, but he would convey the spirit of it to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Ashplant (Devon) said that if the scheme could not deal with foreign imports it was no good. REMUNERATION OF BOARD. Clamour arose when the item on the agenda relating to the remuneration of members Of the board was reached. Mr. B. Weir (Somerset) proposed that it should be:—Chairman, £1500; vicechairman, £1000; other me. .bers, £4OO. Mr. Weir was subjected to considerable interruption during his speech. Mr. Hobson (Cheshire) seconded. Mr. Brown (Shropshire) moved,as an amendment that the figures be:—Chairman, £1200; vice-chairman, £700; other members, £350. The amendment was earned by 161 votes to 84. A further amendment to alter the figures was proposed and defeated. Mr. W. E. Halliwell (Coventry), referring to the manner in which fee meeting was being carried on, said it was a degrading position to put the chairman in. If that was the way farmers did their business it did not say much for the future.

Another amendment relating to the remuneration was moved and rejected amid interruption. It was then moved and carried by 158 votes to 98 that the three ite:ns of remuneration be dealt with separately. Mr. Halliwell suggested that the chairman’s remuneration should be £1250. Mr. Ben Hinds (vice-chairman of the board) temporarily conducted the proceedings -while the chairman’s remuneration was under discussion, and he applied to the meeting to conduct the business with dignity. The figure of £l5OO as the chairman’s remuneration w; s rejected amid clamour and some confusion.

Disorder again broke out and amid an uproar the sum of feIOOO was moved, seconded, and rejected. Mr. Hinds: Now I am open to take a new figure. z The sum of £l2OO was proposed, and eventually this was carried. Amid much shouting the remuneration of the vice-chairman was fixed at £7OO and that of the other members of the board at £350.