Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-03-Speech-2-685-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120703.26.2-685-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, I am pleased that I once again have the opportunity to thank Parliament and its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) and all of the rapporteurs for the considerable work that has already been accomplished. These efforts have enabled us to make progress on alignment issues, which we would all like to see resolved.
More specifically, with regard to the regulation on organic farming, which Mr Häusling mentioned, we have still not reached an agreement on the most sensitive point, that is, the procedure for the authorisation of the withdrawal of substances which may be used in this kind of agriculture.
I understand very well that you believe that the authorisation, or lack thereof, of certain substances or types of substances has political significance, particularly within the framework of organic farming. Therefore, you cannot accept being excluded from the decision-making process on these substances. I understand that very well and, what is more, I support this approach.
I think, however, that your hesitation is closely linked to the regulation on organic farming which is currently being drafted. The criteria surrounding the authorisation of substances can be improved and adapted. I can understand that many of you think that it would be desirable to update them and to make them more specific as often as possible.
That is precisely what we are proposing to do. The Commission has just adopted a report on the experience gained in the implementation of the ‘organic farming’ regulation since 2009, since it has been in force. This report is the first step in a debate on improving the current legal framework for organic farming. We have just launched an assessment, an impact assessment, which will, in particular, deal with updating the criteria for the authorisation of substances used in organic farming. This analysis will be followed by legislative proposals aimed at improving the basic regulation. Parliament will be fully involved in this process, which will also encompass criteria for the authorisation of substances, which will be included in the basic act once the regulation that we are going to propose has been improved. Parliament will be involved because this amendment to the regulation will take place via the ordinary legislative procedure.
Once we have debated the content and once we have reached an agreement on criteria in particular, I think that the questions of procedure that we are concerned about today will come up again less acutely, because this adaptation of the basic legislative framework will be an opportunity to set more precise authorisation criteria with you. I hope that your concerns will then be appeased.
In summary, I welcome your proposal to put the alignment issues to the vote in plenary tomorrow. This will allow us to determine Parliament’s position. It will then be possible to resume the interinstitutional discussions on a clearer basis. I hope that we will quickly reach an agreement and that we will dispel all of your concerns.
I will say it again: I will be directly and fully involved in this process of final discussions. Every time we have the opportunity to take a decision that will strengthen the role of Parliament, while legally respecting what is laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon and the regulation under consideration, I will ensure that Parliament is able to fully assume its role as colegislator and oversee the implementation of these legislative acts.
As we know, this alignment of agricultural legislation with the Treaty of Lisbon is primarily a very technical issue, as we have also seen from what the rapporteurs have presented, and it is legally quite complex, but it is also work that carries a great deal of political sensitivity and importance, particularly for Parliament, but also for all of the institutions involved in the decision and the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
I am fully aware of the political importance for Parliament of this discussion on alignment.
As Mr De Castro mentioned, the discussions began under the Hungarian Presidency and have continued for almost a year. We came very close to reaching an agreement at one time but, in the end, we found ourselves at an impasse after the last trialogue on 20 December 2011 under the Polish Presidency.
The Danish Presidency then decided to include the ‘alignment’ part of the four main regulations in the debate on CAP reform and to pursue negotiations on other alignment issues separately.
I would like to be clear. I have said this several times before the AGRI Committee, but I would like to say it again: I have always been careful to defend Parliament’s prerogatives, as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, in all of the alignment packages in order to achieve a balanced distribution of power between the Council and Parliament.
For every grey area, and every time that it was legally possible, I would like to point out that I have chosen an approach that allows the two institutions to play their part. By favouring delegated acts and by strictly adhering to Article 43(3) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which Mr De Castro mentioned, I have tried to move in the same direction as Parliament. That is why, for example, I favoured a role for both the Council and Parliament in financial discipline in the regulation on direct support. That is also why, when defining the obligations to maintain permanent pasture, I also favoured delegated acts. There are many examples, including in the very sensitive area of sanctions, and I would ask you to examine these in detail: you will see that the Commission has made efforts to move in the same direction as Parliament.
It is not surprising that, from this starting point, which ensures a greater role for Parliament, the Council has not always agreed and, of course, it has failed to reach compromises. However, generally speaking, from this starting point, which I have just defined, the overall compromise package in each alignment operation has strengthened Parliament’s prerogatives.
In any case, we must ensure that this alignment does not have an impact on the discussions on the content of the CAP reform, which are very important for all of us. I consider this vote a sign that Parliament is going in the right direction."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples