Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-12-Speech-3-325"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020612.10.3-325"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, may I begin by thanking the Members of this Parliament for the work they have put into considering the proposal for a common market organisation for alcohol. In particular my thanks go to the rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González, for her analysis of the proposal and the report.
Amendments Nos 14, 16, 17 and 18 are purely technical improvements to the text that have also been discussed in the Council, and there is no problem in accepting them.
Amendment No 20, however, is more difficult to accept. The Commission does not want to create a specific working group on alcohol as part of the wine management committee. The Commission's aim is the same as that in the amendment, that is, to bring together the real experts on alcohol. For that reason, the Commission has already made a statement on organising the work of the wine management committee in such a way that all alcohol-related items are grouped together in order to permit Member States to send the real experts to the meeting.
Although Amendment No 21 is acceptable, I must point out that it limits the Commission's scope to take transitional measures more than the original proposal does. This text appears in other regulations and is therefore acceptable.
As far as Amendments Nos 22 and 24 are concerned, the Commission of course agrees that the rules on state aid should be applied in this sector, too, and therefore should not be deleted. I also recognise the value of existing aid systems in certain Member States, especially for small agricultural distilleries, and the need to find a solution for them. The notion of a transitional measure is certainly one I must give thought to, but I am not yet in a position to indicate the specific nature of the solution.
The Commission cannot accept Amendment No 23, as indicated a short time ago. The Commission can accept Amendments Nos 3, 5, 13 and 15 on including synthetic alcohol in the proposal as far as the system of data collection is concerned. According to the Court of Justice case law, it can be included without changing the legal basis of the proposal and therefore the Commission is of the opinion that the global alcohol market is satisfactorily addressed by this proposal.
I hope that my comments today have clarified the Commission's position on this proposal. Moreover, I should like to thank Members of Parliament for their constructive suggestions, which we shall of course consider, and for the time they have devoted to this process, and in particular I would thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González, for her contribution.
Before I comment in more detail on the amendments proposed, I would remind you that this is another proposal to establish a set of common rules for the alcohol sector after several attempts in the past, all of which failed for various reasons.
The Commission is of the opinion that the actual market situation in this sector makes it necessary to propose at least a minimal set of rules and that, accordingly, the chances of success this time are fairly good. Most of the amendments proposed can be accepted by the Commission. All amendments relating to the change of title are acceptable. Indeed if the title proposed by the Commission creates problems because it refers more to an intervention system not provided for here, a more appropriate title reflecting the content of the regulation as suggested by Parliament can be considered.
The amendments on including synthetic alcohol in the article on market information can also be accepted. Parliament initially proposed to extend the proposal to synthetic alcohol, which is not an Annex I product and therefore is not part of the common agricultural policy. For most outlets except alcoholic beverages, both agricultural and synthetic alcohol can be used and therefore compete on the same market. The suggestion in the Agriculture Committee's report that synthetic alcohol should be included in the article on data collection to establish a yearly market balance of the sector, and to have better market information and increased market transparency, is one which the Commission is willing to consider.
Amendments 7 and 19 concerning deletion of the state aids article are not acceptable. The Commission is of the opinion that all provisions proposed are necessary to establish a set of common rules for the alcohol sector, including the provisions on application of the rules on state aids. Without fair application of those rules, there would not be a real common set of rules for agricultural alcohol, and I would point out that those rules already apply to synthetic alcohol.
The Commission is well aware of the concern that the application of state aid rules may create a problem for the functioning of the German alcohol monopoly. I would repeat that the purpose of this proposal on agricultural alcohol is
to put an end to that monopoly. If alcohol production by German farmers under monopoly rules, including federal payments, is necessary to maintain valuable eco-systems or to cover the extra costs of environment-friendly production methods, current state aid rules offer substantial scope to grant aids for those purposes or rural development aid schemes could be used. On the other hand, small distillers producing not only alcohol but also spirits could benefit from the de minimis rule on state aid for non-agricultural products.
The Commission is willing to try and find a solution, but cannot accept the proposal to simply delete the related article on state aid from the draft text. A solution should be found within the context of that article. Amendment No 8, which refers to the declaration on rum under the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement and asks for special treatment to rum producers affected by the application of EU policies is also difficult to accept.
By definition, the proposed regulation should comply with all bilateral and international agreements, as stated in Article 14. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to grant special treatment to one category of partners within a specific agreement.
Amendment No 13 can be accepted except for the reference to CN code 3814 0090 in the definition of non-agricultural alcohol because that code covers mixtures of alcohol with solvents and is not limited to non-agricultural alcohol. Adoption of Regulation No 142/2002 has solved the problem of imports of those mixtures."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples