Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-316"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001025.13.3-316"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, before I go into the details of the report, I would like to thank both Mr Jové Perez for his report, and the members of the Committee for the time and effort they have devoted to the 61 amendments. One thing is clear to me: as with any totally new system, the practical experience that we have gained in recent years suggests that the market organisation for fruit and vegetables must be the subject of a review as well, and it must also be fine-tuned.
The second group of amendments are specific requests relating to the functioning of the COM, for example Amendment No 5 on new raw manure, and Amendments Nos 27, 21, 25 and 34 on special support measures for severe crises. Amendment No 18 is intended to improve the scope for direct sales, and Amendments Nos 22 to 24 relate to the operational fund. Amendments Nos 28 to 30, 33, 36, 37 and 38 concern inter-branch organisations, nuts and withdrawal.
As with the first group of amendment, the proposal we are discussing today is not the right place for these amendments and I cannot therefore accept them. But I do admit that both groups contain some interesting points which the Commission will carefully consider in relation to the reports to be presented by the year end. I would like to point out that a proposal to the Council adopted on 5 October already covers consideration of an increase in appropriations for nuts.
The third group of amendments does relate to the proposal actually being debated here. Amendments Nos 6 and 25 propose an increase in Community support via the operational funds. The aim of Amendments Nos 31 and 32 is to strike out the reductions in market withdrawal ceilings proposed by the Commission. Amendments Nos 67 and 68 address water consumption, and Amendments Nos 9, 11, 15, 16, 40, 41, 51, 53, 57, 60 and 61 in various ways propose increases or changes in processing thresholds and aid for tomatoes, peaches, pears, and citrus fruits.
Amendment No 39 proposes simplification of the procedure for adjusting new products in the processing sector. Amendment No 43 relates to transitional arrangements for tomatoes and Amendment No 12 calls for a study on the abolition of the minimum price. Lastly, Amendments Nos 62 to 66 provide for direct aids for producers not involved in processing. Most of the amendments in this group would result in an increase in appropriations which in some cases would be substantial, and are thus very much at odds with the principle of budget neutrality. I cannot therefore accept these amendments.
Of course the issue of the overall level of Community financing for this sector is also to be discussed by the Council on Monday. I am sure that these discussions will continue, and that this point will also be an important part of the final decision on this proposal.
In my view, Amendments Nos 41, 53, 67 and 68 would complicate the system rather than simplify it, and the framework system does not cover Amendment No 12. However, the Commission agrees with the substance of Amendment No 39, but we will consider how to improve the drafting for legal purposes. Amendments Nos 62 to 66 change the existing system in a way that would jeopardise efforts to develop producer organisations.
In conclusion, I would like to make the following comment. Any delay suffered by the Commission proposal would result in most of the changes due to come into force under this proposal with effect from 1 January 2001 or as from the start of financial year 2001/2002 not coming into effect until a year later. The Commission regards this as an unnecessary disadvantaging of this sector. That is why this proposal has been presented at this point, and I hope that Parliament will adopt its opinion this week and that the Council will adopt the proposal before the end of the year.
The Member States and the representatives of the sector itself agree with the Commission that there are some key problems that we should solve as quickly as possible. That was the reason why the Commission to some extent anticipated the report and brought forward this proposal for discussion without waiting for the final report.
We concentrated on four areas: the double upper limit for financing the operational fund, the operation of the support system for tomatoes for processing, the level of quotas for tomatoes, citrus fruits and pears, and export refunds. But the fact that we anticipated these four areas does not mean that we will not present the report required in the COM. We will do that in any case, and will we do so before the year is out.
However, as I can see from many amendments, you have taken advantage of this opportunity, and in addition to the four subjects brought forward for debate by the Commission, you have also anticipated the final report. There is accordingly a certain discrepancy between the Commission's views and what you are proposing here.
What principles has the Commission been guided by in producing its proposal? In view of the budget situation and the Berlin decisions, any proposal that would have led to substantial increases in budgetary expenditure in favour of a specific sector would have been unrealistic. The proposal is therefore based on the principle of budgetary neutrality.
I am of course aware that appropriations for the fruit and vegetable sector – leaving bananas aside – have fallen since the 1996 reform and that the Agenda 2000 forecasts have also not been fully met. Two factors are chiefly responsible for this. First, expenditure on support for the operating fund has risen far less than expected, the reason for this being that the number of members in the producer organisations has not grown as much as was hoped, and, second, rising world prices and value of the dollar had to be taken into account when calculating processing aid.
Finally, the Commission proposal aims at extensive simplification, by harmonising the existing processing rules for the most important products and also making them more transparent. For tomatoes, pears, peaches and citrus fruits, individual thresholds for Member States have been set in addition to the Community threshold, and permanent aid is paid direct to the producer organisations. One advantage of the proposed amendment is that on the basis of the future aid contribution – which has now been set for an indefinite period – the producer organisations can freely negotiate the price for unprocessed products. This will make minimum prices superfluous in future. Furthermore, the introduction of a single guaranteed upper limit for contributions to the operational fund will simplify both the creation and implementation of operational programmes.
With these principles in mind, I would now like to turn to the amendments you have proposed. As I see it, they can be divided into three groups. The first group consists of general comments on the COM. Amendments Nos 1, 2, 44 and 19 relate to strengthening the role of the producer organisations, Amendments Nos 8, 14, 26, 27 and 35 relate to increased support for peripheral regions and less favoured regions, and to trade measures; Amendments Nos 17, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56 and 59 relate to reporting arrangements for the COM. Amendments Nos 3 and 4 are about an increase in EU appropriations for the fruit and vegetable sector.
As I see it, none of these general comments on the COM has any place in the proposal before us, because they anticipate the proposal that we are still considering, and should therefore be discussed in conjunction with this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples