Mr President, I think it is important to point out first that the Commission metes out different treatment to the various sectors dealt with in its communication. Three options are provided for sugar, but only one for olive oil, tobacco and cotton. These three crops are cultivated in the same geographical area. They also have in common that they are labour-intensive and dependent on other associated economic activities. Furthermore, many of the holdings on which tobacco and cotton are cultivated cover only a small area. Consequently, the impact on the cultivation of these three crops is likely to be significant. Serious consequences can be anticipated regarding the area under cultivation, the number of holdings, employment and economic activity in producer areas. In the case of cotton, the Commission has already recognised the danger of the crop ceasing to be grown altogether. It has therefore proposed partial decoupling of aid. The circumstances surrounding olive oil and tobacco are similar, yet no such proposal has been made for these crops. I would be interested to know what alternatives the Commission is contemplating for the area concerned should cultivation be reduced or cease altogether. I am particularly anxious about tobacco-producing areas. Doing away with tobacco growing seems to be part of some hidden agenda. I would also be interested to know from the Commission what it envisages the impact on tobacco imports will be, and whether it is of the opinion that consumption will decrease when the crop is no longer grown. The Commission’s communication also raises a number of major legal difficulties. In the case of oil, Council Regulation (EC) 1638/98 amending the common organisation of the market in fats and oils provided that: ‘no aid may be paid to olive growers in respect of additional olive trees or the relevant areas planted after 1 May 1998’. Nonetheless, the Commission’s communication suggests that all aid to olive oil would be calculated on the basis of aid received in the period 2000-2002. It should be borne in mind that an olive grove only starts to come into production five years after it is planted. It only comes into full production ten years after it is planted. According to the proposal in the Commission’s communication, olive trees planted between 1990 and 1 May 1998 would be entitled to aid, but the implication is that such aid would be less than the aid awarded to trees in other groves. This raises serious doubts as to whether the guidelines outlined by the Commission are compatible with the principle of legal certainty. Similarly, the 1998 Council Regulation provided for guaranteed national quantities. Exceeding these quantities would incur penalties, and entitlement to aid would be reduced. Furthermore, aid to olive trees planted between 1988 and 1 May 1998 would also be reduced if the approach outlined in the Commission’s communication were adopted. In this case too, there could potentially be a conflict with the principles of legal certainly and equal treatment of workers. Commissioner, I would be interested to learn the Commission’s views on this subject. I wonder if it is aware of the danger of one of the affected producers challenging the regulation in the Court of Justice and rendering it ineffective. The common market organisation for cotton is based on Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece. It therefore has the force of a treaty. Paragraph 2 provides for the establishment of a Community regime with a view to maintaining the production of cotton in those regions of the Community where it represents a significant part of the agricultural economy. The aim was to enable producers to have a fair income and to stabilise the market, so as to improve structures as far as supply and demand are concerned. Paragraph 2.1 provided for the establishment of a Community regime aimed principally at maintaining cotton production in those areas of the Community where it is important for the agricultural economy. In addition, paragraph 3 provides for the granting of aid to production under the regime envisaged. The aid outlined by the Commission will not make it possible to maintain production in parts of the Union where the whole social situation is very finely balanced. Furthermore, the consequences of decoupling aid run counter to those sections of the Act of Accession of Greece I quoted earlier. They also run counter to what was agreed in 1979, ratified in 1986, and enshrined in texts that are a primary source of Community legislation. Commissioner, I do wonder whether the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, really does believe that its proposals comply with those Treaties. In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to voice my astonishment at the fact that the European Parliament has not seen fit to express its opinion on the Commission’s communication by means of a resolution. If the Commission forwards a communication to the European Parliament, the latter should at the very least produce a response to the contents. Furthermore, this is an unprecedented decision. To date, the European Parliament had always responded with a report or a resolution to communications prior to reform of the CMOs.

Political group: GUE-NGL