Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-186"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.20.2-186"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first and foremost, I should like to congratulate Mrs Fischer Boel on this reform. It was an ambitious proposal that the Commission put forward, and the compromise subsequently adopted by the Council is an excellent one. The result is clear: more free trade where sugar is concerned. Over the next few years, the world’s poorest countries will be given free access to the European market, and the price of sugar will be reduced to something closer to its price on the world market.
I am annoyed that Parliament has made its contribution too late. In spite of many calls to get things under way last year, we are now in a situation in which we have had our day, as the decision has already been made in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. That does not mean that the European Parliament has made no impression on the reform. On the contrary. Quite a few features of the reform reflect the wishes expressed by the European Parliament. For example, the section on restructuring reflects our desire to strengthen those regions in which sugar cane production is crucial.
I am very pleased that we have, at long last, adopted a reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar, which has existed largely unchanged for 40 years. By means of this reform, we have taken a good long step in the right direction: towards something that is more in the way of a market economy. However, I should like us to go still further. It is not enough to bring about free trade with countries outside the Community, as the fact is, of course, that we do not have a free market within the EU. Only once we have removed the national quotas so that production occurs in the places that are best for it and where it is most profitable shall we be able to talk in terms of having a free internal market.
There are quite a few features of the reform worth emphasising. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to do so. I want particularly to mention the proposal for increasing the use of biofuel and the production of ethanol, in which I believe we must invest a very great deal as quickly as possible. That is something that, fortunately, a number of Member States are doing. Meanwhile, others are procrastinating and have not yet begun investing. It is not only sugar cane but also other crops that can be cultivated in areas previously given over to sugar cane and that can be used for biofuel which – environmentally, economically and in terms of supply – will be an important part of future energy production.
The biggest battle in the campaign to create a basis for biofuel must be fought with the Member States’ finance ministers, who are a little too keen on the tax revenue from oil and on the contribution it makes to the state coffers. Irrespective of how justified it may be, the reform – including, in particular, the reduction in prices – will have harmful and far-reaching consequences for some of those poorest countries in the world that cannot cope with free competition in the world market. Given the very high price of sugar in the EU, we bear a very large share of the responsibility. It is therefore an urgent matter for us to appropriate adequate resources for the restructuring faced by these countries. Finally, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Fruteau, for his constructive cooperation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples