Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-134"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.12.3-134"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Commission’s plans to slash export refunds will cost the EU’s food and drink processors an estimated EUR 145 million per year. It is particularly galling that the decision to impose these cuts was taken without consultation with this House.
Export refunds are not a subsidy. They compensate the food and drink industry for sourcing their raw materials within the EU at higher prices than can be obtained on world markets. It is astonishing that the Commission chose to single out German fruit yoghurt, Scotch whisky and pharmaceutical products for these cuts, apparently for no better reason than the belief that these are wealthy industries which do not deserve assistance. Other sectors, such as pasta, confectionery and some dairy products that also receive export refunds, have escaped relatively unscathed. This is deeply unfair. The cuts are damaging to EU industry and they will destroy the competitive advantage of our agri-foodstuffs sector and they will destroy jobs.
The Commission’s scheme to compensate food processors for losing out on export refunds, by encouraging them to seek inward processing relief on a range of commodities from outside the EU, is both muddle-headed and inept. Not only does the scheme encourage processors to import grain and other raw materials from outside the EU – once again to the direct disadvantage of our beleaguered farmers – but it also involves a mountain of red tape and bureaucratic complexity which will virtually exclude SMEs from this scheme.
The Commission must devise a new system. Those food and drink exporters who through adding value to their products, constitute a vitally important part of the EU agricultural economy must receive alternative compensation exactly equivalent to the value of the export refunds they have lost. To do otherwise will place EU food processors at a massive competitive disadvantage on world markets.
Export refunds are essential to ensure the international competitiveness of non-Annex – I processed food. In addition, the food and drink processors in the EU purchase around two-thirds of all their agricultural produce within the 15 Member States. This deliberate attack on non-Annex – I export refunds further undermines our farmers who are suffering their worst recession in decades. It is also a direct attack on the fastest growing export sector within the EU, our processed food sector.
We are committed to 36% reduction of export refunds over six years and we are nearing the end of that period under our obligations in the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement. However, these cuts should not be targeted in such an arbitrary manner on a small number of industries, as the Commission has chosen to do. Access to IPR offers only a very unsatisfactory and temporary solution.
I congratulate Mr Souchet in drawing up a good report in the face of Commission intransigence on this issue. He is fundamentally correct in describing the Commission proposal as a temporary measure. There is no doubt that the whole system now needs to be dismantled and rebuilt in a much more sensible and less complex manner, in line with our WTO and GATT requirements."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples