Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-14-Speech-4-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010614.2.4-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, may I start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Martínez Martínez, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for their detailed and constructive reports on the complex subject of outermost regions.
The Commission's stand on the proposed amendments is based on the principle of budgetary neutrality, which must be maintained in all cases.
Nonetheless, expenditure on the three POSEI programmes can be increased to EUR 204.4 million between now and 2005, with the same breakdown, as this proposal is covered by savings. The Commission can therefore only agree to proposed amendments which impact on the budget if they are offset by equally high savings.
I shall finish, if I may, by listing the points on which I can agree. I can agree to a specific supply regime for the French departments for products from all third countries, that is, not just from developing countries and other overseas departments, and to the fixed deadlines for the entry into force of certain articles of POSEIDOM which guarantee continuity and facilitate trade between the Azores and Madeira in products which come under the supply regime. The conversion of vineyards planted with hybrid varieties can be continued in the Azores and Madeira under certain circumstances. Promoting imports of fattening cattle could be included in a comprehensive programme to promote cattle breeding on the Canary Islands. Finally, the transitional regulations should be strengthened in order to guarantee continuity.
Again, I cannot agree to apply Article 292(2) here.
Now briefly to the fisheries reports. I shall confine myself here to the proposed amendments; obviously you know what they are because you are about to vote on them. The first two proposed amendments concern the legal basis. As the same legal basis must apply to the whole package of measures, the Commission stands by its proposal to apply Article 37. Article 299 should only be used in order to make provision for derogations from the Treaty, which is not the case here.
I can accept the third proposed amendment. Amendments Nos 4 and 6 concern problems with fish and flags of convenience. These problems were raised during the debate. We are in full agreement with you here and I expressly welcome the fact that Parliament has a clear position on this matter. We would prefer, however, to resolve this problem when we next amend Regulation 27/92, which we are already working on. We shall be sending a proposal to Parliament and the Council within the next few days.
As regards the fifth proposed amendment, a broad majority in the Council is in favour of a compromise solution on this question. A compromise would be acceptable to the Commission, because the fleet segment in question comes under the heading ‘small coastal fisheries’ and we want to avoid adverse repercussions, especially as artisanal coastal fisheries do not represent a danger to stocks.
In Amendment No 5, you suggest that action to renew and modernise the fleets in question should be included and that national and Community investment rates should be raised for the entire fleet. We cannot accept your Amendment No 5 because we feel that we should not keep on promoting the overcapitalisation of the EU fleet.
I can accept Amendments Nos 7 and 8.
Then briefly to Mrs Fraga Estévez's report. This proposal is the first in a package of measures ordered by the European Council in Nice. Today's proposal meets one of the specifications set in Nice, namely to extend the current aid regulation to 30 June. The Commission will be adopting the second measure in the package ordered by Nice in June as well. This proposal for a Council regulation will contain a series of derogations from the provisions of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and will propose specific measures for which additional funds will be earmarked. However, as this proposal will not pass through the Council until the autumn, we can agree to your proposed amendment extending aid to the fishermen and shipowners in question under this proposal until the end of the year. I think this is justified for social reasons.
I should like, if I may, to quote a few statistics on the disadvantages of these regions. Six out of seven of the outermost regions have an average per capita income of between 40 and 55% of the European average and are hence among the lowest in the Union. The unemployment rates in five of these regions are among the highest in the European Union at between 21 and 37% of the working population.
I hope that, despite the noise here, anyone interested in hearing my report and my position has been able to do so. Thank you.
The first proposal relates to contributions by the Structural Funds. The maximum contribution by the Funds in outermost regions – and this is new – has been set at 85% of overall eligible expenditure. The maximum contribution of the Funds towards investments in small and medium-sized enterprises has been increased from 35 to 50%.
The second proposal concerns the regulation on developing the countryside under the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. The ceiling on the EAGGF contribution towards eligible investment costs has been raised from 50 to 75% for investments in farm holdings and from 50 to 65% in the processing and marketing sector. In addition, aid will also be granted for woods and areas belonging to the local, regional and national public sector in the future.
The proposal also makes provision to increase certain financial contributions under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance. All the additional expenditure incurred here can be financed from the budget approved for the 2000-2006 planning period.
I am delighted that Parliament supports the Commission proposals in principle and that we enjoyed such constructive discussion in the various committees. I can agree with many of the proposed amendments, provided that we find the right wording. They include the amendments increasing maximum aid rates to 65% for the entire foodstuffs industry and to 75% for SMEs, on condition that investments for sectors and enterprises comply with certain target specifications, to be decided at a later date.
They also include the amendments increasing agri-environmental measures in the agricultural sector and the three other flanking measures to 85% and doubling the maximum amounts for agri-environmental measures in the sensitive areas of Madeira and the Azores. I also agree that these measures should enter into force with retroactive effect from 1 January 2000. However, the Commission stands its ground on the legal basis. Article 299(2) should only be used for derogations from the Treaties or general legal principles.
Now to the agricultural part of the POSEI programme. Having evaluated aid regulations on the basis of past programmes, it is clear that previous measures have, by and large, had a positive impact, although there has been repeated criticism on certain points. The Commission's proposals have been drafted in the light of both these evaluations and this criticism.
So what are the most important considerations? First, the present framework for specific supply regimes and specific aid for local agricultural production should be simplified, consolidated and improved. Secondly, the specific supply regimes must be strengthened because their objective, that is, to bring production costs in peripheral regions into line with costs in the rest of the Community, is still valid. Thirdly, the list of products has been revised and a number of feedingstuffs have been included on the list. Fourthly, we want more competition between supply sources, which is why we have introduced the principle whereby aid must reflect the costs of transport from the European mainland. Fifthly and finally, the common organisation of the market in milk and in beef and veal needs to be revised in order to harmonise the three POSEI regulations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples