Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-144"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000920.12.3-144"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – On behalf of the Commission and in particular my colleague Mr Liikanen, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Souchet, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for the preparation of your report. I hope that your deliberations will lead to a consensus that opens the way for a rapid implementation early in the new budgetary year.
We all agree on the need to promote the Union’s processed food industry competitive position. Export refunds are an important instrument in sustaining the industry’s competitiveness by compensating for high prices of basic agricultural products in the Union. However, both budget constraints and commitments under the WTO severely restrict available refunds that will no longer be sufficient to cover the industry’s export opportunities. It is for this reason that the Commission has proposed, within a balanced package of specific measures, an additional facility of inward processing relief – IPR – that will help compensate for the industry’s loss of international competitiveness.
The Commission can agree with your proposed Amendments Nos 2, 6, 10, 13 and 15. The Commission can broadly agree with the purpose of Amendments Nos 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14 but does not consider them entirely appropriate for a number of reasons.
For WTO negotiations, a specific mandate from the Council is required therefore the present regulation does not seem to be the appropriate means of determining the Union’s position. This relates to the first of the amendments. Furthermore, some amendments could entail an administrative burden related to implementation and control that would appear disproportionate. This concerns Amendments Nos 3, 11 and 14.
The threshold for exempting small exporters from the export refund certificate system has already been increased to EUR 50 000, which concerns Amendments Nos 7 and 8. The remaining flexibility under the 2000 budget has already been used, which relates to Amendment No 9.
Finally, the Commission is not ready to accept Amendments Nos 4, 5, 12, 16 and part of Amendment No 1. As a general rule, the Commission does not support discrimination among individual products concerning the possibility of access to inward processing relief. This relates to part of Amendments Nos 1, 4, 12 and 16. Moreover, the use of C-sugar in processed products for export is not possible under current market organisation: this concerns Amendment No 12. Operators importing products under the IPR do not receive any refund for the export of processed goods, so the assumption in Amendment No 5 is incorrect."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples