Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-04-23-Speech-1-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070423.21.1-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, our committee deliberated whether to present a report on this, since we do not consider the issue to be of particular importance and our positions on timing are not especially divergent. In the end, however, we decided to do so, knowing full well that, pursuant to Article 37, you will not adopt our proposals if you disagree with them. The situation would have been different if codecision applied in this sphere and the Constitution had been adopted.
By doing so, we want to make clear and show to the outside world that the views of Parliament and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development differ in certain respects from the Commission’s overall plans concerning sugar reform. We want to make clear that we favour a move towards European or ACP sugar, about which we have concluded agreements. We cannot approve of the emerging trend towards the sugar industry importing raw cane sugar from other countries where it is cheaper, refining it here and in the process jeopardising domestic sugar-beet production.
We want to make clear that our proposals on sugar reform might have been more successful than the situation we are currently seeing and having to deal with on the ground. You also chose a different course with regard to quantitative quotas or the possibility of administrative measures to reduce quantities.
Now Commission documents, too, are mentioning the possibility of such administrative measures, because the alternative has not worked. What has worked, however, is the creation of a big mess at local level. The restructuring measures have not been adopted. Our proposal that, when factories receive funds, they should and must lay down a rural development plan, has not been implemented – even though you have confirmed here that this makes sense in substantive terms. The Commission is stipulating a clearance policy – the dismantling of factories – without any replacement for the rural economy. As a result, the sugar industry is building biofuel plants – which then run on maize, palm oil and grain rather than on sugar beet. This is all one big mess.
Looking through the Commission’s proposals now, I do not know if the administration can still follow how many different measures are to be taken. There is no clear line, and it is regrettable that, owing to the absence of codecision, the expertise of Parliament and, in this case, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has not been given a chance. Commission and Council listen but, once Parliament has voted, then go away and do as they please.
This is not the end of the matter, however. This dispute is taking place not so much at political level. I can believe that Commissioner Fischer Boel does indeed wish to involve Parliament, but the administration disagrees. In my estimation, the administration is putting up a fight and will do anything to defend its power and oppose political input from Parliament. I hope that, following the elections in France, the situation will change and progress be made with the Constitution, and also that, following the 2009 elections, the new Parliament will enjoy codecision powers in the field of agriculture, too.
In this connection, allow me to turn to another field, if I have five minutes’ speaking time – namely the Regulation on organic production. There is a dispute over this: we are calling for Article 95, but the Commission is putting up a fight. Here, too, we have made good proposals. For example, the Council – and I hope we shall be able to discuss this again – is now making a derogation for genetically modified substances in food additives, which is pure madness, as we reject genetic engineering as a matter of principle.
These are procedures that could be avoided if there were greater coherence and if Parliament’s expertise and political far-sightedness could be drawn in."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples