Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.20.2-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, for the maturity and efficiency with which he presented his proposals and for his cooperation with the political groups and all the parliamentary committees.
Fourthly, the possibility of national aid for producers for a transitional period and the provision of a percentage of between approximately 30 and 50% of the sum given for the restructuring of industry to producers themselves, provided of course that they continue to cultivate other crops.
Of course, what this means, Commissioner, is that you undertake to safeguard the sugar budget during negotiations on the financial perspectives. Otherwise, it will be cheque returned to drawer which, in the wake of the Commission's poor organisational skills, will reinforce the lack of credibility of the Community institutions in the mind of European citizens.
Unfortunately, however, I must point out that the Commission and the Council have decided to review one of perhaps the most important markets without barely waiting for the decisions by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
Do you imagine, Commissioner, that the way in which you have handled the issue promotes substantial interinstitutional cooperation? Of course it does not. Do you today have at least to make a show of good cooperation with the European Parliament? Which of the European Parliament's proposals do you intend to accept? Have you been instructed and do you intend to exert dynamic pressure on the Council in this direction?
The review of the sugar industry is a premeditated crime for rural areas and for the European industry and of dubious results for developing countries, especially the less developed countries. Already in numerous regions, including my country, Greece, demonstrations have started by sugar beet producers and workers in the sugar industry – including the Greek sugar industry – due to the significant repercussions which a reduction in the order of 36% will have.
You said, Commissioner, that you aimed to make the European sugar industry viable in the European Union. Are you exaggerating or have you got the wrong figures? Both predictions and results show that the sugar industry will shrink or disappear and producers with it.
We are therefore calling, within the framework of close cooperation and a mild adaptation of the new market, for certain proposals which are expressed as proposals in the Fruteau report.
First, substantial compensation for loss of income, mainly for the small-scale producers who will be hardest hit by the reduction in aid.
Secondly, material activation of the Reconstruction Fund, as the basis for substantial consultation with all producers and workers for the preparation of integrated operational programmes and restructuring programmes in a bid to stop areas being abandoned.
Thirdly, aid of EUR 80 per hectare for areas sown under energy crops and an increase in the overall number of hectares allowed from 1.8 to 2.8 million. This is important, because efforts are being made to switch to more environmentally friendly forms of energy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples