Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-14-Speech-4-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020314.2.4-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking you, Mr Cunha for your excellent report, which is obviously based on an in-depth analysis of the Commission proposal. This proposal fixes the premiums and guarantee thresholds for the next three years, changes the scope of the Tobacco Fund and slightly simplifies the common organisation of the market.
Information campaigns on the harmful effects of tobacco consumption need to be extended and new information campaigns need to contain more comprehensive information on the harmful effects of smoking. That is why we propose gradually increasing the amount retained to 5% by 2004 and why we cannot accept Amendments Nos 7 or 9. Amendments Nos 22 and 23 calling for an additional 5% to be retained are unacceptable because they will overstretch a great many enterprises financially.
Amendments Nos 7 and 16 are unacceptable; they are superfluous because the assessment due for completion by 2002 also deals with these aspects. The same applies to Amendments Nos 10 and 24. Amendments Nos 1 and 8 are unacceptable because the derogation for cooperative undertakings is difficult to justify. However, may I remind you that the auction procedure is optional for producer Member States and they are free to decide whether or not they consider it advisable to introduce this procedure.
Finally, I should like to point out that the individual components of this proposal, by which I mean maintaining premiums at current levels, adjusting thresholds to current production levels, the three-year period of validity and promoting diversification, form a balanced entity which is tailored to producers' requirements and takes account of new prospects. In the first quarter of 2003, the Commission will present new proposals to the European Parliament and the Council for the future of the sector thereafter, based on the results of the assessment, which should be available by the end of this year.
As far as premiums are concerned, the Commission proposal is that the current amounts should remain unchanged, with the exception of variety group 5, which Mr Parish referred to earlier, where we propose a 10% reduction. This being the case, we cannot accept Amendment No 17; the reduction in premiums for this variety group has only been proposed because the market situation is now totally untenable, with prices in free fall and very high stock levels which will affect future developments on this market.
As far as guarantee thresholds are concerned, the Commission proposal is that they should gradually be reduced by 2.6% to 334 000 tonnes by 2004. This figure more or less corresponds to quantities produced in the 1999 and 2000 financial years. Amendments Nos 18 and 19 are not acceptable to the Commission because the suggested guarantee thresholds and the way in which they are broken down bears no relation to current production demands and efforts to encourage varieties for which there is greater demand.
Recital 5, which the honourable Member referred to earlier, reflects the political framework underlying the proposal as regards the Tobacco Fund. This proposal is a twofold proposal. First it amends the scope of the Fund, by dispensing with funding for agronomic research in order to support producers switching to other crops and, secondly, it gradually increases the amount retained to 5%.
The Commission has created a new political framework in its communication on a strategy for sustainable development. We are working towards phasing out aid for the tobacco sector because we are required under Article 152 of the Treaty to guarantee a high level of human health protection in all Community policies. We too are aware of the fact that there is no direct relation between tobacco production and smoking levels, that is, people will not stop smoking because we provide less support for tobacco growing.
The political question lies in Article 152, which quite clearly states that a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in all Community policies, that is, including all aid policies. Which means that the other question no longer applies. The deletion of this recital suggested in Amendment No 2 is therefore unacceptable.
Nor is the suggested reference to the European Parliament's resolution in Amendment No 3 acceptable because it has nothing to do with the proposed regulation. Amendments Nos 4 to 6, calling for an assessment of the social and economic impact have already been overtaken by events. We are already carrying out a comprehensive assessment which also deals with these aspects. The Commission cannot therefore decide on a timetable for abolishing aid here and now, as called for in Amendments Nos 25 and 26.
The Commission is aware of the potential impact of phasing out aid to tobacco growing, especially in various production areas such as Greece, Spain and Italy, where the social and economic structure is particularly fragile. The Commission communication therefore makes provision for measures designed to create alternative jobs and profitable economic activity under rural development plans to support producers switching to other crops.
Amendments Nos 7 and 11 calling for continuing aid for agronomic research are unacceptable because promoting measures to switch into other crops is now a strategic priority and we must move decisively in this direction. The Commission takes the view that tobacco producers must be offered new ways of diversifying into other crops or other sectors. Funding can be provided for research under the Community research policy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples