MEAT MARKET.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20543, 19 February 1935, Page 1

MEAT MARKET.

Premiers Must Arrive at Agreement. BRITISH VIEWPOINT. United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received February 19, 10.50 a.m.) LONDON, February 18. 'The Times” says: “Conditions on the meat market are such that homegrown beef is bound to sink unless they can be improved. Beef in England and Wales accounts for 35 per cent of the total agricultural production. and in Scotland for 54 per cent. Mr Bruce at the World Conference said that it was a confession of bankruptcy of statesmanship to restrict consumption when so many have their needs unsatisfied, but it will be hopeless, both for Britain and the Dominions, if agricultural prices are allowed to collapse below the cost of production.

“ During the discussions with Mr Lyons and the Dominions’ 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.”

The Sydney Sun-Melbourne Herald News Service says that 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. New Zealand will accept a levy on beef, but not on mutton and lamb, which would necessitate a very heavy levy on beef, because mutton and lamb produce the revenue. This might not be acceptable to Australia.

EXTENSION OF SUBSIDY. Mr Elliot’s Move in House of Commons. British Official Wireless. (Received February 19, 11.15 a.m.) RUGBY, February 18. 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, are still proceeding in the House of Commons. Today Mr W. E. Elliot, Minister of Agriculture, moved a resolution providing for a three months’ extension of the subsidy*, which was granted the United Kingdom cattle producers, in view of the low level of prices. This would enable the negotiations to continue in a friendly atmosphere. Mr Elliot pointed out that in the case of the Dominions 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 Argentine supplies until November, 1936. Negotiations of such far-reaching importance could not be rushed. “ The trade and Imperial issues involved are such that it is vitally necessary that the supplying countries should feel that every possible consideration is being given their views,” said Mr Elliot.

The Government’s policy in regard to food supplies was to encourage the maximum supply of produce to consumers at the lowest prices consistent with reasonable remuneration to Home producers. That policy had succeeded. Food consumption was going up. Mr Elliot mentioned that the public taste was turning from beef to other forms of meat and said that the suppliers should notice that the beef market was actually shrinking. Dr C. Addison, who followed Mr Elliot, said that the Labour Party did not object to the producers getting a fair price for their products, 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 the demand. Any scheme for the 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.