Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-307"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.22.2-307"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I have listened carefully to the debate. Its intensity is a sign that quite a lot is at stake. However, it is also a sign of the commitment with which you have engaged yourselves in the process of making this new reform.
There is also a series of technical amendments that were already accepted in the technical discussions on the Commission proposal. Other amendments cover minor issues that could better be settled in the framework of the implementing rules. I am not in a position to accept the other amendments on the reform of the COM.
Let me now move to the draft regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes. I can support the principle of increased flexibility for Member States in the context of the compensatory payments and therefore accept the substance of Amendments 5, 6, 8 and 11, adjusted as necessary.
Building on my vision to underpin the development of bioethanol production in the Community, I can also live with the notion of Amendment 7, whereby sugar beet for purposes other than sugar production could be grown on set-aside land.
Amendment 4 and Amendment 13 present a compensation system based on the amount of sugar produced from beet from each individual farmer. I am in favour of the proportionality principle of this reform, for instance, by advancing higher levels of compensation to Member States facing severe reductions on their quotas. However, the draft report proposes a system that would differentiate payments based on the volume of the sugar beet produced. Such a system would create enormous practical difficulties for a very limited added value, which would go against the shared objective of simplification, and I therefore cannot accept it. Nor can I accept the other amendments.
Finally, let me refer to the draft regulation establishing the restructuring funds. I can endorse the idea underlying Amendments 4 and 14, whereby beet growers can benefit from a part of the restructuring aid. However, given the very different conditions faced by Member States, a minimum of 50% would be too high. Let us not forget the many obligations that need to be dealt with through this restructuring fund. There are some environmental, and some social obligations that are very important. If we were to impose a minimum of 50%, there would be cases where we would have difficulty in meeting these different obligations. Therefore I cannot accept it.
As mentioned already in my opening statement, a
of 10%, with the possibility for the Member States to increase this percentage, seems much more appropriate. Mrs McGuinness, this is addressed specifically to you: I would never dare interfere in the decisions taken by the Member States to decide at what level they would agree on this compensation percentage.
Likewise, I can support the principle set down in Amendment 5, and the relevant part of Amendment 10, relating to the extended flexibility for industries ceasing sugar production and moving to alternative sectors, such as the production of bioethanol. The same applies to the notion of the partial quota surrender which is in Amendment 7.
The social element is already well covered in the proposal and additional administrative requirements would only slow down the restructuring process. Therefore, I am of the view that Amendments 6, 9 and the relevant part of Amendment 7 should not be accepted.
Some last-minute amendments have also been tabled. I am positive about the idea of Amendment 17. Sugar beet growers who continue sugar beet production in Member States which significantly reduce their sugar quota should be eligible for some kind of state aid for a transitional period.
The proposed amendments to which I have not referred are of minor importance and for technical reasons I do not consider it necessary to take them on board. This also includes the last-minute amendments tabled last week.
Let me first deal with the amendments. I believe that I have found in them a lot of common ground with my own views. I shall start with the proposed new common market organisation. You have argued that the safety net is necessary during the restructuring period ending in 2009-2010 in order to limit undesirable market disturbances. I can accept that. I can therefore endorse the substance of Amendments 2, 29 and 54.
I took note of the particularly harsh comments that were made concerning the treatment of the ACP countries. Indeed, this has been the subject of very intense discussion, but we have not forgotten the ACP countries. The foreseen price cut only kicks in for the ACP countries in 2008, two years after it is imposed on the European farmers. Let us not forget that after the full implementation of the reform, the ACP countries will still benefit from a price that is twice as high as the world market price.
The Commission has always proposed an action plan for the ACP countries, with EUR 40 million for 2006. These funds are expected to be at their disposal in 2006, even if the prices are not lowered until 2008. Funding of EUR 40 million is certainly not a lot, but it is enough to get started and it has always been the intention to provide significant
funds for the remaining period from 2007 to 2013. It is quite clear that the size of these funds will depend on the ongoing discussions on the financial perspectives.
The reform also introduces a number of obligations for undertakings that want to take up the restructuring fund. I must say that I am sorry and disappointed that quite a lot of Members – among others the Polish Members – are obviously unable to be here, because it must be completely clear that sugar companies cannot, I repeat
just take or cash in the restructuring fund and leave the country. They simply have to provide measures for employees in the sugar industry. These rules apply to training or early retirement, or what you will. This money is going to be spent in cooperation with the government. There seems to have been a complete misunderstanding about these restructuring funds.
I can answer Mrs McGuinness' question on the levy, which is: yes, the only way to avoid this payment to the restructuring fund would be to do away with the production in 2006/2007.
Lastly, some Members criticised the fact that the Council agreed on a political line for the sugar reform on 24 November 2005. The definition of a political line at the November Council was driven by exceptional circumstances. The current regime remains applicable only during the ongoing campaign and our growers and operators face some very difficult choices. We owe it to them to provide, in a timely fashion, acceptable conditions in which they could make those choices.
We have lost in the WTO panel on sugar, and compliance with the panel's conclusion is a matter of urgency. Finally, we had to prepare for Hong Kong in order to be able to defend our sugar sector, and we therefore needed to know what we had to defend.
However, I must emphasise that these circumstances should not have come as a surprise to anyone. Since I presented my reform proposal before this Parliament on 22 June, I made it absolutely clear that the Council would have to define its political line on the sugar reform at the November Council. I repeated this when I appeared before the Committee on Agriculture on 13 September 2005 and when I wrote a follow-up letter to all the members of that committee on 26 September 2005. I have operated in full transparency throughout the process to allow Parliament to play its role to the fullest.
But, finally, let me say to those of you who are critical here today that we owe much credit to the many committees and members of this House who have provided very valuable input over the last 12 months. The reality is that you have managed successfully to influence the shape of the reform – a reform that will secure sustainability of this sector in Europe and a reform that allows us to offer a real alternative to those farmers and to those regions that will be most affected by the restructuring. That is the result and it is a good one.
In order not to encourage overproduction and subsequent building-up of stocks, it will be necessary to set the intervention price at a level considerably lower than the reference price of the following campaign. Intervention will also have to be limited to a certain maximum quantity. Finally, I think that during the restructuring period we need to dispose of all management tools, including private storage.
You also argue that as long as our international commitments are respected some quantities of quota sugar should or could be exported. For the sake of the market balance, this is an idea that I can live with and thus I accept in principle Amendments 20, 39, 49, 51 and 68.
Many of you have mentioned bioethanol. I share your analysis that future energy production could become a
outlet for Community beet. Along these lines, I can support Amendments 11 and 42, raising the political profile of bioethanol in the reform package.
As you are aware, the Commission is working on a whole set of political initiatives. On 1 February we shall adopt a proposal on the promotion of biofuels based on agricultural raw materials. I am also aware that Mr Parish is currently working on a Parliament resolution on exactly the same subject. I think we need to take this debate when these contributions have been adopted, rather than to take it now within the context of the sugar reform. I must underline that I am very interested in coming back to this debate as it is very important.
I share the view that we need to address the specific problem arising for those growers who practise autumn growing. This is specifically a problem in the Mediterranean countries. That would require a provisional extension of the quota without restructuring levy for the marketing year 2006/2007. The Commission can thus agree with the principle of Amendments 23 and 69.
I can share your concerns as regards the income of beet growers, and consent to the relevant part of Amendment 31 concerning the removal of the additional 10% flexibility for the sugar price.
On industrial sugar, I can accept the substance of Amendment 43. Strict and complex rules that are difficult to monitor should be avoided."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"additional"1
"cannot,"1
"major"1
"minimum"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples