Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.11.2-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The reason why I voted against the modified proposal was that the report proposed to maintain a system that has not been reviewed for 32 years. The CMO for sugar is unsustainable in the long-term given the constraints in Category 1 (Agriculture budget).
Furthermore, it has major implications for the European taxpayer, for jobs in the food and drink manufacturers and for consumers. More importantly, this report rejects improvement in management of the sugar regime of which one small measure was the Commission proposal for the abolition of the storage levy.
My opposition to reinstating the storage levy scheme is based on three factors. First, the storage levy is passed on to consumers. Abolishing the system, therefore, will mean that sugar manufacturers will bear the storage costs. Second, the abolition of the storage levy scheme will inject an element of competition into the highly distorted market. This will benefit the sugar-using industry and consumers as well as enabling observers to evaluate the effects of limited competition on the EU sugar sector. Finally, the budgetary resources allocated to the system (EUR 300 million per annum) could be redirected towards other agricultural expenditure.
The second principal concern about this report is that Daul's amendments extended the current regime until 2005-6 contrary to the Commission's proposal of an interim regime lasting 2 years. I am opposed to another five year roll-over. The momentum for reform is mounting. EU sugar prices are 2.5-3 times the world level. Such a system threatens to jeopardise the EU's credibility in relation to impending enlargement and WTO obligations. This report also ignores the conclusions of a recent Court of Auditor's report denouncing the regime as wasteful and mismanaged and stating that the current system leads to substantial costs for the EU budget and consumer.
I have a lot of empathy and support for the farming industry, and I know that many of them recognise that serious and considered reform is necessary to ensure that the sugar sector is prepared for the demands of the future. By contrast, the consequences of another roll-over would be deeper and deeper quota cuts, which would shrink the base of EU industry and lead to unemployment. Similarly, artificially high prices cannot be sustained. They are detrimental to the sugar-using industry and the consumer, and a degree of competition must be incrementally introduced in this sector.
One of the further areas of concern was that comprehensive studies were undertaken to evaluate viable alternatives to the current regime which take into consideration the impact on producers and consumers in order to enable the Commission to draw up more detailed proposals for further reform of the sugar regime on the basis of these reports."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples