Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-10-Speech-3-319"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020410.10.3-319"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like to thank all Members of Parliament who have spoken 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, for her analysis of the proposal and efforts to understand its objectives.
Again I thank all Members that have spoken and others who have dealt with this subject. I thank them for the time they have given to this proposal. In particular I thank the rapporteur, Mrs Ayuso González, for her efforts.
As you know, this is another proposal to establish a set of common rules for the alcohol sector, after several attempts in the past that all failed for different reasons, as has been mentioned tonight by several Members. The Commission is of the opinion that the actual market situation in this sector made it necessary to propose at least a minimal set of rules and that, under those circumstances, the chances of succeeding this time were fairly good. That was also the opinion of a large majority of Member States that invited the Commission to come forward with such a proposal.
The Commission is therefore somewhat surprised that, despite the hard work of the rapporteur, who initially came forward with a series of amendments which might well have been considered, Parliament now proposes rejecting the whole proposal. In the draft resolution Parliament has asked the Commission to withdraw its proposal as it does not fulfil its objectives of regulating the whole market of alcohol in the European Union. I presume this amendment refers to the non-inclusion of synthetic alcohol in the proposal for agricultural alcohol.
The Commission cannot, at this stage, agree with Parliament's position, as is understandable. Parliament's position would imply considering the proposal to be the result of a lack of reflection and lack of analysis of the real situation of the sector.
If, from an economic point of view, there are good reasons to extend the proposal to synthetic alcohol, there are legal and practical reasons why the Commission did not do this, when it established the proposal. Synthetic alcohol is a non-Annex I product and therefore not covered by CAP. Inserting it into the proposal would mean that we would have to find another legal basis other than the CAP Articles 36 and 37 of the Treaty. More importantly, the smoothest way to make a proposal was to limit it to agricultural alcohol because the production and trade in synthetic alcohol in the European Union is more limited. Most of the problems the sector faces are linked to agricultural alcohol and not so much to synthetic alcohol. If, once this regulation is applied, serious problems arise in relation to synthetic alcohol, insertion of synthetic alcohol into this instrument could always be envisaged.
The Commission is well aware of the fact that the major part of the alcohol market is accessible to both types of alcohol, which therefore compete for the same outlets. In order to realise its objective of better market information and transparency, the insertion of synthetic alcohol in the article on data collection to establish a yearly market balance of the sector and therefore to increase market knowledge might be considered. The Commission is working on that. This would also be defensible without a change of legal base provided that it could be shown that it was genuinely necessary, in order to manage the CMO for agricultural alcohol, that we should have the data for synthetic alcohol. The case-law of the Court of Justice permits the use of Article 37 for provisions that have an ancillary effect on non-Annex I products, where this is necessary for the proper functioning of the CMO. For the rest, the Commission is of the opinion that all other provisions proposed are necessary to establish a set of common rules for the alcohol sector, including the provisions on the application of the rules on state aid. Without a fair application of those rules there would not be a common market for agricultural alcohol, as already exists for synthetic alcohol.
I should like to say something about the German market in answer to Members who have made reference to that particular aspect. The Commission is well aware of the functioning of the German alcohol monopoly. The purpose of this proposal for a common market organisation for alcohol is not to put an end to the existence of the German monopoly. If the production of alcohol by German farmers, under the rules of the monopoly, including federal payments, is necessary for the maintenance of precious eco-systems or to cover the additional costs of environmentally-friendly production methods, there would be no problems, as current state aid rules offer substantial possibilities for Member States to grant aid for those purposes. If, on the contrary, the aid in Germany is not given for such reasons but is simple operating assistance, paid for other reasons, then the application of the state aid rules would cause a problem. On the other hand, those small distillers who produce not only alcohol but also a spirit, could benefit from the
rules on state aid for non-agricultural products.
I hope that these comments which I have also made on behalf of my colleague, Mr Fischler, have clarified the Commission’s position on the proposal. Moreover, I would like to thank Members of Parliament for their constructive suggestions, which the Commission will consider.
In answer to the question put to me by the rapporteur, if this amendment is accepted – which the Commission would regret – then Mr Fischler and my other colleagues will reassess the situation and reflect on a further course of action."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples