Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-03-10-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050310.3.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I have, as you know, used every available opportunity in this Parliament to raise the matter of the sugar industry.
Sugar beet growing and sugar processing have a long tradition in my country, dating back almost 80 years. The impact assessment adopted earlier by the Commission shows that Ireland is one of countries particularly vulnerable to price reductions for sugar and sugar beet. The implications of the proposal on price and quota cuts, even allowing for compensation, would make sugar beet growing no longer viable in Ireland. The proposals in their current form would be devastating for the Irish industry at both growing and processing levels and there would be a direct threat to the 3,800 farmers currently growing sugar beet.
On the manufacturing side, the industry has in the past provided a very important employment opportunity in the sugar plants, in addition to supporting employment in associated industries. Some of these jobs have already been lost. The Carlow plant in my own constituency has announced its closure, with all the associated socio-economic problems. The uncertain future of the sugar sector has, in my opinion, seriously contributed to this closure. The European Commission's initial reform ideas are already causing unacceptable casualties. This view was also expressed by the agriculture ministers of 10 Member States, including Ireland, in a joint submission to the Agriculture Commissioner.
We all accept that reform of the existing regime is necessary. However, reform should aim at maintaining the existing distribution of sugar beet and sugar production in the entire European Union territory. Reform should be based on the following principles. First, an import system from third countries should be put in place, which will ensure predictable and regular import quantities. Secondly, the price reductions should be significantly less than what is currently proposed and implemented more gradually. Thirdly, the impact of the quota reductions should fall mainly on those Member States that are net exporters of sugar. The transfer of quotas among Member States should not be allowed.
In recent days, the Commission has approved excise relief for a bio-ethanol pilot project in Ireland using rapeseed oil and I particularly welcome that. A few years ago a feasibility study was commissioned by the sugar processing sector in Ireland, with a view to producing bio-ethanol using surplus sugar beet. Surplus beet is of limited value to growers and an ethanol plant would provide an alternative outlet for a significant quantity of such beet. Apart from the obvious benefit of bio-ethanol as an alternative energy source and its potential contribution to a cleaner environment, some of the by-products produced would also be of value to the fertiliser and animal feed sectors. I know you accept this, Commissioner, and you have said so in a previous response.
Because of the current reform process in the sugar sector, it is time for all the governments concerned, all the relevant Commission directorates and the commercial sector to act and seriously re-examine the possibility of developing a sugar-based bio-ethanol industry. In Brazil, the rain forest is being destroyed to grow sugar that nobody wants, so sugar-based bio-ethanol is being produced instead. It can be done; the technology is there.
Commissioner, I appeal to you again to have another look at your proposals, come back and be mindful of the people that you represent."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples