N.Z. MEAT BOARD.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18420, 29 June 1925, Page 13

N.Z. MEAT BOARD.

APPROVAL BY THE FOOD | COMMISSION. | i (ff.oji ora own- cosp.rsroxivEXT.} | LONDON, May 30. ! So fa r as the meat- trade generally is concerned there is perhaps not a great deal in the first report of tho Royal Commission on Food Prices — which has come out as a. Blue. Book with minutes of evidence and appendices —that is of any very practical value. Neither have any very revolutionary steps been recommended. But from tho point of tview of the Dominion and of the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board there are points of interest, not the least important of which is that tho Commission! recognise the usefulness of the Board's purposes, and they completely vindicate the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board by conning unanimously to the conclusion that tho charges made a few months ago Ivy some of the London newspapers hayc not been proved. They have found practically that there has not been any great profiteering—indoed, beef is one of the most reasonably priced articles of food obtainable ■ compared with pre-war prices. T.t is significant to note that the "Daily Mail," which early in tho year had a great deal to say about its charge of food-profiteering, has so far been discreetly silent on the findings of the report. One of the principal duties of the Commission was to enquire into the charges made by various papers that tho operations of the New Zealand Meat .Producers' Board were directed against tho> interests of the consumers in this country. The Board, it was alleged, had kept back supplies in order to increase prices. Before the Commission, Mr Forsyth, it will be recalled, gave much helpful information regarding; the Board, the reason for its establishment, stud the method of its working: also he gave valuable data as to periods of kiting, ns well as stock-census figures. The Commission recognise, that from the Bcasonat nature of the industry, if supplies were shipped and placed oru the market as soon as they were ready there would be periods of glut followed by periods of shortage. , Jlccognition of the Board's Objects. The Commission fully and completely decided that there is no foundation for the charge of holding back supplies. They reaJise that tho objects of tho Board were merely to regulate tho flow of meat so that it should be marketed regularly over twelve months of the year and ensure the stabilised prico to th© producers. They say: "Immediately after tho creation of the Meat Producers' Board prices began to ndvanco and have continued rising until to-day. The price of (i fac lamb at t|tp owl of J924 varied from 3lis to 40s per head. It is not surprising, therefore, that meat traders < arid consumers in this country are inclined to attribute to the activities of j tho New Zealand Meat Producers' , Board soma part,-at any rate, of the responsibility tor the sharp rise in tho price of New Zealand lamb and mutton during the four years that the Board , has been in existence. Nor is it sur- , prising to find that tho Board is popli- i Jar with tho New Zealand producers, j and is willing to assume all rlio credit it can for the mora favourable turn of affairs sines its creation. Wo have consequently been led to make very careful enquiry into the constitution and functions of this Board and into tho effects, if any, upon ttie price of mutton and lamb which may fairly be attributed to .the of the very wide powers with which it is entrusted.-' Complaint Without Foundation. "In December last, shortly after we were appointed, our attention was drawn to the high prices quoted for "New Zealand lamb, and to allegations that these were due to the holding back of supplies by the Meat Producers' Board, On enquiry we found that in fact there was practically no New Zealand lamb on the market at the time; that tho prices quoted were befcig realised for the most part for Australian lamb and not for New Zealand lamb; and that so far as the New Zealand Board could bo said to have influenced tho level of prices then rilling, the most that could be said was that if tho Board had not allowed the whole of last season's lamb to be disposed • of in ten months, bat had held supplies up for a few weeks longer, ihe prices ruling in December last might have been lower. The complaint commonly ' made Ahat the Board wore holding up supplies ' in Xtnv Zealand (although their published statistics showed that their stocks of lanib were actually exhausted) proved to be without foundation. "Our conclusion from such evidence as we have taken is that the operations, of the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board have pot been an important factor in determining the higher average level of mutton and lamb prices during the last three years. Indeed, we find it difficult; to see. how the Board can be responsible for raising the average level of prices unless it can be shown either to have deliberately withheld or diverted supplies from the , British market, or to have taken steps I directly or indirectly to restrict pro- I duetion. Neither of these possible alternatives has, in fact, been adopted, j and we do not «oelieve that either j course represents the policy of the New I Zealand v meat producers or the New Zealand Ctovermnent. While there is a common interest amongst producers in regulating the flow of eup- j plies and stabilising prices, there is \ ucj identity of interest when it comes ; to disposing of their stock to the refrigerating companies; and we can well believe that it would be exceed,ingly difficult, not to sny impossible, to enforce a common policy of restricting production on the New"Zealand farmers. Moreover, though New'' Zealand lamb is in a class by itself, there is plenty of competition from other countries which would soon render the policy of restricting production abortive and unprofitable." Conclusion After Hearing Lord Vestey. It wili be a matter of interest to New Zealand to know that after hearing Lord Yestey's evidence on tho effect of speculation, tho Commission express the belief that responsible opinion in tho trade "shares our view that the higher prices now ruling for New Zealand mutton and lamb cannot bo attributed to the action of tho Board m regulating supplies. We have._ however, heard complaints from certain witnesses on the ground that by regulating shipments the Board is able to prevent a glut in the London market. Normally a glut in London would be reflected by lower buying prices _ in New Zealand. As it is. wo are informed that large operators never have an opportunity of forcing down prices in }iew Zealand in the hope of making profits from a subsequent recovery. It &eems to be admitted on all hands that the Board have succeeded in reducing the activities of speculators. bu,t since temporary depressions of price have a disturbing effect on production, and confer no "corresponding benefit on consumers, we cannot endorse the view that the operations of the Board have run counter to the general interests of Great -Britain as a consuming country." On this liead the "report of the Commission is very satisfactory from the New Zealand point of view, it hnvintf i established the above facts, backed by

Lord Yestey's evidence, given under cross-examination. Suggested Co-operation. There is a proposal that the Food Prices Council should co-operate with the X«w Zealand -Meat Producers' Boerd, and Mr Forsyth welcomes the idea. The official summary reads: — "The existence of the Board introduces a new factor into the- imported meat trade, 'which may have very important consequences for this country. Under their existing statutory powers the Hoard may at any time establish an effective monopoly for -the sale of New Zealand meat in the markets of tho,■world. For this reason we tliink it is essential t'.iat the operations of the Xew Zealand .Meat Producers' Board should ho suhject to continuous and sympathetic observation by a body representing all interests concerned in this country, such as the Food Council which wo are recommending your Majesty's Government to sot up. Wo feel that a body of this kind) «n close and constant contact with the imported meat trade in nil its ramifications, would be in a position to co-operate with the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board in the legitimate and beneficial objects, which it seeks to achieve, and to intervene with friendly counsel if at any tipie the Board should be led by pressure on the part of the producers in New Zealand to take any action which might be construed as detrimental to British interests. Association of the Food Council with the activities of such producers' organisations would also serve to dispel unjust suspicion and reassure publio opinion in this country that the consumer was not being unfairly exploited." Useful Recommendations. The Commission hare strongly recommended the adoption of the proposal by the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board ih.t statistics as to quantities of meat in store in Great Britain should be published monthly by the Board of Trade. Proposed) Registration of Butchers. The suggestion has been made that the retail butchers should be licensed and registered through the Food Council, In the ease of any misdemeanour, such as wrongful handling of meat, it would be '*■ very serious matter for tho retailor if his license were withdrawn, 'for this would practically put him out of business, while from' the New Zealand meat trade point of view, the tendency would be to check tho practices of wrongful retailing. Registration is recommended mainly in ''the interests of the consuming public as a means of securing closer supervision by local authorities over tho retail meat trade; but in itself we do not think tlmt registration is in any way contrary to the legitimate interests of meat traders. . . . Retainers of meat of all kinds for human consumption would be required to ap» ply for registration within a specified period and at tho outset every retailer who applied would be entitled to nave his name placed on .the register ,-is ai matter of course. The withdrawal or cancellation' of registration, would only be resorted to as an extreme measure in consequence of persistent breach of the conditions lsid down. We believe that the mere threat af cancelling registration would, im the great majority of cases, be sufficient to bring about the abolition of practices which are contrary to the public interest."