LIVESTOCK BILL

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 63, 1 April 1937, Page 10

LIVESTOCK BILL

" — I! W J" English Farmer and Permanenf Assistance POINTS DISCUSSED j LONDON, March S. Some New1 Zealand farmers may have kegarded with a slightly uneasy interest the introduction of the English Livestock Bill for the improvement of the, iudustry, but the bill is decidedly not before its. time, and New Zealanders, may have no fears that an infringe-j ment on their "right" will follow. It| should be realised, as undoubtedly itj is,.that the problems confronting thosei

responsible for the direction of British' farming aTe vastly difEerent from the' complexitieS of Dominion primary production. It is true that the fear of war, and a consequent blockade, food shortage, and ration cards, lurka in the background. It is equally true that the lot of ihe English farmer ia not congenial, that he f aces fiejrce - competition, and that 93 per cent of the nation is indifferent tp his welfare to the extent that they, are not directly dependent for their livelihood on the land. Again, a proportion of . English farming is backward when compared with New Zear ; land ' practice, and there is a lot of dead wood in some Of its organisatios ithat could be removed with beneflt. j £5,000,000 a Year Guaranteed I The bill makes. permahent the tem« jporary assistance given in 1934, It jguarantees £5,000,000 a year tp proiducers of 'beef cattle, an ipcrease of about' £1,000,000. It will probably allpw pf a basic subsidy of from 5s per eyru with an increase on super quality cattle of from 2s to 3s per cwt. A permanent commission is to be eppointed to dd* minister the subsidy. It wijl.have comprehensive powers over livestock markets. It may pasg by-laws in maxkets^ and, subject to certain provisions, close xedundant markets altOgether. It has ' power to establish, - with the assistance of a^Treasury grant of £250,000, three experimental centralised abattoirs in districts not yet specified. A tariS of |d per 1b. is to be placed on Argeatine mpat, Despite these provisions, there - is no confidence among farmers that the Livestock Industry Bill will ,at any rate in the near future, make beef production profitable again, Some benefit should reault, at any Tate, from the regulation of the English livestock markets. The system in many district is hopelessly oiit of date, governed by ancient charters, which pexpetuate the confinuation of several markets in neighbouring towns where one eflcient modern market would servc to better advantage. Prices Considered Low. Again, though many of the thqusands of private abattoirs are well built and Well run throughout the country, there are thousands which are nofc, so that the estahlishment of central slaughterhouses is regarded as an interesting experiinent. The English system of abattoirs is difEerent from that in Scotland, where the average municipality has its slaugtterhouse in which all butchers must kill their stock. The question has been asked why should this not be done in England, since it would savo publlc authorities endless time in inspecting stock glaughtered on private premises. Even the mopt ardenfc supporters of the bill, including the Minister himself, do not claim that it will bring real prosperity to the livestock farmer, who blames the Government for the inadequate help given by subsidy and protection. Even allowing for the subsidy, the index figure for fat cattle for 1935 and 1936 was approximately 105 (taking the years 1911-1913 at 100). In view of post-war costs this trifling increase is considered not enough, and that it does not give the stock farmey a fair deal. According to the Minister 's . retnrns, the average price of fat cattle, first and second qnality, was 35s 7d per cwt.; 5s per cwt subsidy makes thi» only 40s 7d. The critics say that the lowest price that any expert of authority has dared to quote for production costs is 48s per cwt. Eural Workers Declining It is believed that costs in the immediate future are not likely to decrease, With the feturning wave of industrial prosperity, it is in many Ndistricts almost impossible to secure efficient labour, even at rates considerably higher than the basic Wages Board figure. In one district a new factoyy ja enabled by a high tariff to pay unskilled men £3 a week, No producer of livestock at anything like- the prices now ruling, no matter how efficient he may be, could do this without going bankrupt. There has been a further decline of 4.9 per cent. in the number of rural workers in the year 1936, as compared With 1935, which followed a decline of 2.3 per cent. in that "year as compared , With 1984. When, it is asked, is this rot to stopf' At sueh a time as this, with the world in turmoil, this denudation of the countryside is more than serious. Those who worry ajost point out that at more than one period in the last war Brit&jn was in great danger because of food supplies. After 19 years, though it was said that never again could England alford tO ajlow sueh a position to arise, she is worse, not better, off. When these various points are borne in mind it is plain that the English livestock industiy -equires every assistance, that is designed to improve the condition of the Home farmer rather than to set up Dominion barriers. At the same time, it is an unfortunate fact that many English farmers do frown upon Dominion importations and hol* the erroneous opinion that thesp imports are merely duinped surpluses. It was, perhaps, this opinion which Lord jBledisloe had in mind recently when h? suggested the establishment of a Home |and Empire agricnltural consultative [committee to discuss matters of policy.