Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.20.2-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have always maintained, both in committee and in Parliament, that the Commission’s haste in pushing through its proposal – to the extent of breaking institutional and Community rules – was suspicious to say the least. The reason for such haste seemed obvious: after the World Trade Organisation negotiations, the Commissioner would certainly find it more difficult to gain approval for a reform characterised above all by major price cuts and partial compensation for losses.
Madam President, while agreeing that reform is needed, my group has always demanded that it should not only bring in the necessary changes, but above all not lose sight of the essential aim of keeping the sector internationally competitive in the medium and long term. We have therefore been opposed to the Commission’s proposal right from the start, because it aims at concentrating production in certain Member States by sacrificing the less suitable, weaker areas; thus only some areas will have to pay the price of the inevitable overall cut in European production.
Fortunately, the Council has mitigated the Commission’s original proposal, partly by introducing the chance for Member States to grant production-linked aid, up to a maximum of 30%, although the compromise achieved is not fully satisfactory and will still penalise the sector too much. At this stage Parliament must, in any case, accept the responsibilities conferred on it by the Treaties and adopt its own position.
Although it will be very difficult to reopen a debate that is now closed, when the Council comes to formally approve the reform, it must consider the possibility of including some of the vital amendments proposed by Parliament to improve the text. These include, for instance, maintaining the intervention system until 2010; varying compensatory aid according to production; making it mandatory to allocate at least 50% of the restructuring aid to sugar beet and chicory growers, to offset their loss of income; and reformulating the conditions for access to the restructuring system through the signing of a trade agreement with the sugar beet and chicory growers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples