Lamb and potatoes face court action

Press, 19 October 1978, Page 12

Lamb and potatoes face court action

From the “Economist,” London The E.E.C. commission has decided to prosecute Britain and France before the E.E.C.’s court of justice, for illegally protecting farmers a* the expense of consumers. Britain and France fall foul of the community’s rules on free trade by operating bans and other restrictions on (respectively) imports of potatoes and of lamb. Neither food is, at present, covered by the Common Agricultural Policy. If the commission wins, British housewives may be able to buy cheaper and nicer potatoes, while French housewives should get cheaper lamb. That the French are protectionist comes as no surprise. But there may be blushes in Whitehall. Mr John Silkin, the British Minister of Agriculture, condones a domestic potato policy almost as protectionist as the EEC.’s Common Agricultural Policy — for other foods — that he is so fond of criticising; even down to the mountains of surplus produce. He can point out that potato harvests are erratic. And the one virtue of the British system is that retail prices often drop well below the guaranteed price (as now). Farmers, or rather the Potato Marketing Board, get compensation in arrears. But this does not excuse British protectionism. In most years, the British ban imports of main-crop potatoes. Until last January’ 1, the end of Britain’s transition period, Dutch would-be exporters had to live with this; Britain’s ban was exempt from E.E.C. rules under the terms of entry. But when it was repeated this year. Dutch exporters complained to the E.E.C. commission. In some years, an import ban is not enough to maintain prices, and surplus output is bought up. In August, Britain announced plans to buy in about 500.000 tonnes at a cost of eome S4O million. That would tot up to some Sl2OO per British potato farm. Since many of them are big East Anglian farms, they hardlv rank among the deserving poor. So British housewives pay more than they need.

The commission has proposed an E.E.C.-wide potato polrcv to replace existing national policies. The new policv would cost onlv S6M a year. But so far the Nine’s farm ministers are nor keen on it. Mr Silkin, usually the consumers’ champion, fears it will keep prices too low. And the communitv’s most extreme farm protectionists, the Germans, dislike the proposal because they are rather good at potato growing and see no need for even a tiny bit of price-propping.

The case against France over lamb is similar. The French operate a variable levy on imports from low-price Britain. When the price plummets, the French block imports. What has angered the British is that, under a bilateral deal reached last year, Irish lamb enters France levyfree.

Mr Finn Olav Gundelach, :he farm commissioner, also wants an E.E.C. sheepmeat

policy. But the French dislike his notions of what it should be because they would remove all import restrictions, cause French prices to fall, and give French farmers only temporary income aids. Still, the prospect of a court judgment insisting on free trade may concentrate British and French minds on what they can salvage from their present protectionist policies.