A shock vote throws the EEC farm policy into utter confusion (1973)

The decision to refer back the report, which was broadly in favour of the Common Market Commission's proposals for farm price rises in 1973, was unprecedented.

It was followed immediately afterwards by another decision to refer back, without discussion, the other major report which was scheduled for hearing in special aid for hill farmers.

The shock development came in the early hours and was a sudden twist ending to nine hours of turbulent debate which had centred on the Common Market Commission's proposals for an overall 2.76 per cent increase in EEC farm prices for the coming season.

Earlier the Parliament had rejected a British attempt to block the price increase, with all the main members in the nine nation assembly voting against a 17 point amendment tabled by the Anglo-Danish Conservative Group, which had denounced the increase as inflationary.

The first intimation that things were not going according to plan was an intervention by Commissioner for Agriculture Pierre Lardinois, who told the assembly that, if passed, an amendment to a key paragraph of the prices report, the Commission would have to withdraw its full package of proposals.

The assembly duly rejected the amendment but followed up by also rejecting the paragraph itself. The decision left members of the Parliament and the Commission in the dark as to what the next step would be.

The Council of Ministers was due to meet in Luxembourg on the following Monday, noted Farming Life, to take up again its own debate on the Commission package, following inconclusive talks in Brussels, but some parliamentarians were uncertain whether there would be anything for the ministers to talk about.

Mr Lardinois said that he did not know what the legal implications of the Parliament’s move would be, but it seemed unlikely the council would be able to make any price decisions before Easter.

The general air of bewilderment was intensified by the sudden way in which the rejection came. The passage which was turned down was the last but one in the agriculture committee’s report. “Everything that went before was passed almost without amendment,” reported Farming Life.

Britain’s Mr Peter Kirk, leader of the Anglo-Danish Conservative Group which had led the attack on the report, told reporters he felt the Commission proposals “had never had a majority in the assembly, though opposition to the package was not united until the last minute”.

One possibility now is that the Council of Ministers could meet as planned and again a week later, if necessary and take provisional decisions on the understanding that they would be subject to parliamentary approval.

Farming Life noted that: “This would be a way out of the immediate problem, which is to cause the minimum dislocation, to the working of the Common Farm Policy, but it would set-up a precedent for the blocking power of the Assembly which might not be welcomed by member governments.”

Mr Kirk declared: “I reckon we have turned this place into a real Parliament. It was tense. There were clashes. People were rude to each other. But that is what a Parliament is for.”

He added: “There was a majority against the Commission proposals throughout and they tried to cheat us at it.”

Meanwhile, Mr Robert Hanna, president of the Ulster Farmers' Union, was among the farmers’ leaders from the nine Common Market countries who attended the key meeting of the General Assembly of COPA, the EEC farmers’ organisation, in Brussels.

The UK delegation was led by Mr Henry Plumb, president of the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales.

Commenting on the significance of the Brussels meeting, Mr Plumb said that they would continue to make their contribution to the battle against inflation.

“But the only effective way of holding food prices steady is to ensure that production is maintained and expanded,” he emphasised, adding: “This requires an adequate framework of support within which farmers can plan and invest ahead with reasonable confidence. Though the CAP can undoubtedly be improved, it is the only framework we have and we must make it work.”