Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday, 23 September 2010.


Type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Schwab, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles - C6-0210/2008 -.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start - and not for the sake of formalities but out of genuine feeling on my part - by offering my heartfelt thanks to Commissioner Verheugen, the Commission, its staff, the Czech Presidency, which is unfortunately unable to be with us today, and those on the committee for their positive and constructive cooperation on this dossier.
If you look into how environmentally-friendly measures for cars can be achieved, you are sometimes surprised that so much time is spent looking into other measures. I think that we, as Parliament, as a European body, have together taken an important step forwards that has not, so far, really managed to demonstrate its importance to the general public or in the political debate.
The regulation that we are passing today is environmentally friendly since, as part of the CO2 package, it represents an important contribution, on the part of European policy, to the reduction in CO2 emissions from motor vehicles. At the same time, however - and I would call this clever environmental policy - it also helps consumers - drivers - to pay less while, at the same time, acting in an environmentally-friendly manner, as it leads to considerable savings, not only in terms of CO2, but also in terms of the consumption of petrol and diesel. In addition, it also - and this, too, is an important point that was particularly important to Parliament and its Members - leads to improvements in the safety of European roads, and not only in relation to goods vehicles, but in relation to cars as well.
I have no intention of going through the individual points of the regulation headline by headline, but I do think that there are a few important political signals that we should go into at this point.
The first point is that, by introducing a mandatory tyre pressure monitoring system for motor vehicles, we will be bringing about a situation whereby better tyre pressure, through an improved driving performance of tyres that the tyre industry is capable of realising, will see drivers in Europe consume up to 5% less fuel without seeing the costs rocket. A tyre pressure monitoring system that is already on the market costs around EUR 100, sometimes significantly less, and the resultant cost savings for consumers will be significantly above that.
The second point that I think merits special attention is the fact that we have succeeded in obtaining the mandatory fitting of a stability system - known as the ESP system - into vehicles as early as 2011 and that we did this not against the will of the European motor industry but with its express participation and support, as this will lead to a considerable improvement in safety on European roads. Unfortunately, due to the fact that the relevant technical specifications were not yet sufficiently ready, we did not manage to also secure the mandatory fitting of the emergency braking systems and the lane departure warning systems - I apologise for these somewhat technical terms, which do not generally come up in the public debate on this issue - by the year 2018 in goods vehicles, in particular. This measure will lead to a significant improvement in the safety of European roads, especially of our motorways. All I can say is that this could reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries by around 35 000.
Finally - and there are still a few differences of opinion on this issue - we have also brought about a situation through this regulation whereby tyres will produce considerably less noise. This does involve some costs, it is true, and for that reason, we thought it was particularly important to include text in the regulation stating that the reduction in noise emissions by road traffic cannot be solely down to tyre manufacturers and, indirectly, consumers, but that it is also a responsibility of the Member States in terms of the road surfaces they provide, and I am extremely grateful that the Council did, in the end, adopt this stipulation.
I thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to an interesting debate.
Madam President, honourable Members, I, too would like to begin by expressing thanks, in this case to the rapporteur, Mr Schwab, and to those Members of this House who participated in the preparatory work, for their truly constructive and engaged cooperation, which makes agreement right at the first reading possible.
What we are actually dealing with here is what appears to be a very technical regulation, yet it is a regulation with a large and far-reaching political significance. What we are aiming to adopt today represents a milestone when it comes to improving road safety. This regulation will make European cars safer. It is a milestone in terms of the environmental compatibility of European vehicles, as environmental compatibility, of course, is something that will not only be achieved through producing more fuel-efficient engines - cars also offer other entirely different options for saving fuel and reducing pollution. At the end of the day, it will also form an important part of our policy of better lawmaking, as it will lead to a truly drastic simplification of the entire regulatory environment.
Allow me to begin with the aspect of safety, which was the most important element in this project. Road safety in Europe is still an issue that demands our earnest attention and that causes us great concern. The rules that we are laying down here, and that will apply as standard to European cars from 2011, will lead to 35 000 fewer deaths and serious injuries a year on Europe's roads. The introduction of the electronic stability programme for passenger cars and for commercial vehicles, in particular, can save almost 3 000 lives a year and prevent serious injuries for 25 000 people. This is, ultimately, a piece of safety equipment which, especially when it comes to goods vehicles, which are often involved in serious accidents, has only rarely been used up to now. The costs to manufacturers will be far outweighed by the overall economic benefit.
This package of measures will play a considerable part in implementing the European Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. It makes low rolling resistance tyres mandatory and requires the installation of tyre pressure monitoring systems and gear shift indicators. These measures will reduce average CO2 emissions by 6 to 7 grams of CO2 per kilometre. That is, therefore, a really very noteworthy contribution. What is more, I do not wish to miss the opportunity to point out that this proposal will lead to a significant reduction in noise pollution from roads since reducing tyre noise levels will bring about a significant improvement in this situation.
Allow me, at this point, to stress once again that we can only achieve sustainable mobility in Europe if, as part of an integrated approach, we include the potential of all the factors that are involved here, which means the vehicle itself - which is what we are discussing today - but we also have to discuss the transport infrastructure and the driving behaviour of the people involved. I am very pleased that that is exactly how the European Parliament sees it.
As for simplifying the legislation, this regulation will bring about an impressive simplification of the regulatory environment. This single regulation will rescind 50 existing directives and, wherever possible, replace them by international rules. Lower administration costs, better transparency and greater international harmonisation will mean noteworthy savings for the industry, and that will help reinforce its competitiveness. At the same time, the Member States will benefit from reduced spending on administration.
When it comes to cars, it is scarcely possible not to mention the fact that the European motor industry currently finds itself in a very serious crisis, the most serious for decades. It is natural, therefore, to wonder whether this is the right time to be implementing technical regulations. Let me be quite clear in my response to that, when I say that what we are aiming to adopt here today is one of the results of the CARS 21 process, in which we worked intensively with manufacturers, the Member States and civil society on how the framework for the European motor industry will look in future and how we envisage the European car of the future. I would like to emphasise strongly that, even in this crisis - and specifically in this crisis, in fact - European manufacturers must not slacken off when it comes to developing and bringing onto the market cars that meet the requirements of the early 21st century, and those requirements are quite clear. Consumers want vehicles that use less fuel, are better for the environment and are safer.
The vision for the European car of the future that resulted from CARS 21, and the common line of all the participants when it came to the future of this industry, is exactly that - what we want is for Europe to send out to face the international competition not only qualitatively the best cars, but also those that consume the least, are the most environmentally friendly and the safest, and I am absolutely convinced that, with products like that, the European industry will retain its leading position in the international vehicles market. Thank you very much.
Madam President, Commissioner, I would like, first of all, to congratulate Mr Schwab on the compromise that he has produced in collaboration with the Council. Not every issue was covered, but that is the way with compromises.
The introduction of mandatory safety systems for vehicles is something I particularly welcome. The mandatory introduction of new safety technology such as ESP will mean that, in future, it will not only be those who buy premium cars who will benefit from a higher standard of safety on the road, but also the drivers of goods vehicles. In doing this, we are making a crucial contribution to the safety of Europe. This must also unconditionally apply to tyre safety.
It is right to clearly class the wet grip, and thus the safety, of tyres as more important than rolling resistance, which helps reduce CO2 emissions. Tyres' rolling resistance, depending on the driving conditions and speed, accounts for 20 to 30% of fuel consumption. It is therefore clear that, given the current environmental debate and in order to reduce petrol costs, a reduction must be achieved. However, it is necessary to realise that, without rolling resistance, which occurs through the deformation of tyres and their elastic properties, safe and comfortable driving would be impossible. We therefore have to see safety in another light here, too. The new developments by the tyre manufacturers show that it is possible to have both safety and lower rolling resistance. In this way, we will also enable the European motor industry to take, and retain, a world lead.
The compromise motions that we will be voting on tomorrow send a clear signal away from the CO2 hysteria and towards greater road safety.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, on behalf of my group, I would like to thank my colleague, Andreas Schwab, for handling a very complex dossier very skilfully. We should also perhaps say in the absence of Council that the negotiations there have been tough but fair, and we have a very good outcome.
I would like to pick up on a number of points built on what the Commissioner said. I am privileged to have been part of the Cars 21 initiative from the very beginning, and we are now seeing the impact of that integrated approach. This is important terminology and a classic example of how a number of different provisions have been brought together in a rolling update of the regulatory framework affecting motor vehicles, but one which the industry is expecting.
We set down a road map in Cars 21 about the environmental and safety challenges that we expected the industry to meet, and the crucial thing there is to give them stability and knowledge so that they can plan and design their new products in a sensible and sequenced way, albeit with demanding deadlines and targets. We do not want to resile from those challenging targets, but to give them that stability. As Günter Verheugen pointed out, with the industry in such a dire position at the moment because of a lack of demand, that regulatory stability is crucially important.
I would like to highlight two points. Firstly, the agreement to bring in electronic stability control systems at the earliest possible date is a very major contribution to safety and I very much welcome that. Those of us who have had the opportunity to test those systems will understand their efficiency. Secondly, I want to highlight issues around the international framework, the repeal of the EU directives and their incorporation into national legislation. I welcome that, but I think it is now more important than ever, Commissioner, that that process becomes much more transparent about the line the Commission is taking on negotiating those directives which are being done in another body, a UN body, and not within this House.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, let me begin by congratulating Mr Schwab on his report and thanking him for his extremely cooperative approach to this whole matter.
Last Thursday night, a colleague of ours, Linda McAvan, was involved in a very serious car accident. Her car was destroyed, but she walked away relatively unhurt. This was because the car she was driving had the most modern safety features and this enabled her not to be seriously injured. That is the context in which we are discussing this report. Road safety saves lives, as Commissioner Verheugen commented, and is so important to the well-being of many families in the European Union. We should not lose sight of that, even in these very difficult times.
That is why I was determined to oppose those people in this Parliament and in the Council who wanted to weaken this Commission proposal. I believe the original Commission proposal is a very good one, and we were determined to resist changes to it.
There was one main weakness, however, in that proposal, which is that there was no provision for the selling off of tyres that did not meet the new requirements after the implementation date. I believe that to be a major flaw. That is why I proposed to the committee - and the committee accepted - an amendment stating that tyres that did not meet the standards after the implementation date should be sold off after 12 months.
However, in the current circumstances of the car industry, given that cars are not being sold, it was quite clear in the discussions we had with the Council that, in fact, 12 months was probably unrealistic, and we had to consider the serious environmental consequences of getting rid of tyres that are perfectly good and sound. Therefore, we were prepared to accept, in the trialogue, 30 months after the implementation date as being the period before which tyres not meeting the requirements should be sold off. However, thanks to the intervention of Mr Schwab, if the Commission believes that there could be an earlier date, that is provided for in the comitology procedure. This was an important area of strengthening.
I would also draw attention to the important environmental measures - particularly tyre pressure monitoring systems - which will not only save on CO2 but also make cars safer, because under-inflated tyres are a cause of many accidents. We have reduced rolling resistance and included gear shift indicators in this proposal, which was not in the original proposal. This will not only benefit the environment but also save motorists money - it is cash in people's pockets, which is very important at this time.
The point about safety has been well made. As I say, tyre pressure monitoring systems are very important, because under-inflated tyres - much to my shame, the United Kingdom is one of the worst culprits for having under-inflated tyres - are a cause of accidents. Lane departure warning systems and electronic stability control are also important. I congratulate Mr Schwab on bringing the implementation of these forward by a year, because they will be of major advantage in terms of safety.
As Mr Harbour and the Commissioner have pointed out, simplification is part of this proposal and that is very important.
Finally, I would draw attention to what we have done in terms of demanding greater emphasis, in road services, on reducing noise. This is because road traffic noise is a cause of stress, and stress is a cause of ill health and, indeed, of fatalities, and it is therefore important to address that issue.
Madam President, Commissioner, this is a constructive report with clear environmental and safety objectives. The committee was clear with regard to noise and health. As many as 210 million Europeans are currently exposed to traffic noise which, according to the World Health Organisation, presents a direct danger to health. Tackling tyre noise is not the only way to reduce traffic noise, but the best results are achieved by a combination of measures, of which dealing with noise emitted by tyres constitutes an important part.
Some people, perhaps even some in this House, say that there is conflict between noise emissions and the safety properties of tyres. There is no evidence for this in any of the detailed and independent studies carried out. I am therefore disappointed that the compromise does not reflect what we voted through in the committee. As regards lorries, 90% of tyres already meet the noise levels contained in the compromise. This is not what we would call a high level of ambition, unfortunately.
Madam President, I would like to welcome this report and congratulate Mr Schwab on its development.
We must welcome anything which makes roads safer. Certainly, the vehicle itself is the most important aspect of this, as well as ensuring that vehicles are of a safer standard.
As the Commissioner said, this is the consolidation or combination of more than 50 other rules. I welcome this simplification because all over Europe, vehicles that are manufactured need to be of the highest standard and vehicle manufacturers need to be responsible for achieving this standard - not only in relation to car tyres, but also in relation to the other aspects mentioned here this morning, such as electronic control and other modern features which ensure that the cars and the vehicles we put on the road are of the best possible standard.
Madam President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteur, and in particular Mr Titley and the Commission, for this sound proposal.
My thanks to the Czech Presidency, on the other hand, are somewhat more ambivalent. I have to say that we were put under heavy pressure by the Council in this trialogue and that the Council showed little ambition. Quite the opposite, in fact, in that the Council warned us in advance against setting our demands too high so as not to jeopardise the manufacturers in these times of economic crisis. I see this completely differently, and I think that the majority in this Chamber does too - particularly in times of economic crisis, what we need is clear standards and for the European industry to be motivated and given incentives to set its standards high and develop models for the future, and not for the current situation. Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions clearly play a very important role in this.
The issue of safety is clearly also important, while the issue of minimising noise, which was given short shrift in this debate, must also not be overlooked, as more and more people are falling ill as a result of noise, with the attendant high costs for society. For that reason, it is also important that this regulation should be in line with relevant standards.
Overall, we have achieved a good compromise. We did not sign the first reading agreement as we were critical of the procedure and also of the pressure from the Czech Presidency, but we can live with this compromise, and we, as a group, will be voting for it.
Madam President, overnight we have had another terrorist murder in my constituency of Northern Ireland. Before turning to the subject in hand, let me take a moment to express condolences to the family of my policeman constituent who has been so brutally murdered by the IRA and to condemn this further act of gross terrorism.
With regard to the matter before the House, I would have to say that I am rarely lobbied in my constituency in favour of an EU regulation and I suppose I would have to say that on even fewer occasions am I persuaded. On this occasion, however, I was pleased to be persuaded, because this proposal contains provisions which both improve road safety and happily assist a company in Northern Ireland which is at the cutting edge of technology and production of tyre pressure monitoring systems. Thus a proposal which makes the fitting of such systems mandatory is not just good for road safety; it is also good for jobs in my constituency.
With devastating levels of road deaths across the EU, measures which make our cars - and thus our roads - safer have to be welcome. It is one area above all where regulation has a definite role to play. It should be sensible, rational and necessary regulation, not regulation for regulation's sake. On this occasion, however, I think that this report has got the balance right, and I congratulate the rapporteur on his report.
(CS) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the high degree of professionalism shown by Mr Schwab in amending the draft regulation of the Commission to include measures which will increase the competitiveness of the European car industry while, at the same time, enabling Member States to monitor effectively market adherence to motor vehicle type approval requirements. For example, by checking tyre pressures, we can reduce fuel consumption and thus also emissions, and by introducing modern electronic drive control systems in 2011, a reduction in the number of accidents on European roads will be achieved one year earlier. Noise reduction is another benefit and one which relates both to tyres and road building. This regulation will reduce the administrative burden and will simplify legal regulations in accordance with the UN agreement on unifying vehicle requirements. This regulation is an excellent example of integrated legislation and I am delighted that the Czech Presidency was well prepared for it and that an agreement between Parliament, Mr Schwab and the Council will therefore be reached at first reading.
(DE) Madam President, a difficult compromise has been reached and I am of the opinion that Mr Schwab has produced a masterpiece here, so from now on, I will be referring to him as Grand Master Schwab.
In order to increase the safety of car drivers on Europe's roads, the early introduction of the ESP anti-lock braking system is particularly welcome. In addition, the fact that the wet grip values for tyres will, in future, be improved again is something that is to be viewed as a positive development, as is the fact that tyre pressure monitoring systems, lane departure warning systems and advanced emergency braking systems are to be considered for other categories of vehicle.
I would, however, like to criticise the fact that the manufacturers have gone ahead with higher tyre noise levels for goods vehicles and I likewise do not welcome the failure to introduce safety measures other than the ESP earlier than is proposed.
I would, furthermore, like to point out that no precise specification of the performance requirements with regard to winter tyres' ability to initiate or maintain vehicle motion was included in the compromise with the Council. I personally find it incomprehensible that no specification of the required driving properties on black ice or mud, for example, was made.
Class C1, C2 and C3 tyres that do not meet the provisions of this regulation as set out in Annex 1 will now be permitted, under the compromise on transitional periods, to be sold for a further 30 months. Parliament had envisaged a 12-month transitional period for this, which would have been what was necessary here.
In closing, I would like to remind you all, once again, of the 180 km/h maximum design speed, as I believe this to be a very sensible measure.
(NL) Madam President, I should like to thank Mr Schwab for his commitment, as he was simply left with his back to the wall at the trialogue. When I studied European law, codecision powers were evidently quite different from today.
The first-reading deal that we now have before us, which was negotiated by four MEPs - including myself as shadow rapporteur - differs markedly from the text adopted by Parliament. This differs from the Commission proposal - the economic crisis was misused to submit an atrocious proposal. Indeed, everyone complains that it lacks substance, and yet it is evidently being accepted.
In the opinion of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, democracy and the role of Parliament are being undermined. After all, if the text adopted by Parliament at first reading is not included in the trialogue negotiations, a second reading is needed, as that is the way it works. We also think that it sends out a bad signal when four Members agree to a text in trialogue and the whole House simply follows suit.
The ALDE Group will be voting against this proposal for reasons of principle. This is mainly for procedural reasons and not because we consider the contents poor, although there is much room for improvement there.
Madam President, I want to raise a related matter. The Commission will know that three 'F' gases are among the six major greenhouse gases. I was rapporteur on the Mobile Air Conditioning (MAC) Directive relating to their use in mobile air conditioning.
It would appear that loopholes are being exploited between that legislation and type approval legislation, which was the tool chosen to implement the directive. I have been alerted over the last few weeks to plans by car manufacturers to avoid any refrigerant change at all, in 2011 and beyond, by applying type approval of certain components. This would mean that the deadline for prohibition of the use of R134a would now be 2017 rather than 2011. Hence, the avoidance of tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions will no longer happen.
National type approval authorities are ultimately responsible for the implementation of the MAC Directive. For example the VCA, which is the type approval authority in the UK, has recently stated that it will approve, after January 2011, new types of vehicles fitted with existing - already approved to Regulation (EC) No 706/2007 standards - MACs containing 'F' gases with a GWP greater than 150. As a consequence, we have evidence of car manufacturers delaying - if not stopping altogether - development and investment in innovative sustainable technology. Can the Commissioner please comment?
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, at this point, I can but offer my sincere thanks for the broad support for this proposal from all sides of the House. What we have, of course, is a compromise, and there is always scope to want a little bit more in such cases. I can also say that I, personally, and the Commission would have been prepared to go a step further. What we have now is what we were able to achieve, however, and it represents a major step forward.
In particular, I would like to emphasise once again what Mrs Rühle said. Politically speaking, the crucial thing, especially in this situation, is to improve European vehicles in areas that will be crucial in future. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the crisis in demand is not just the result of the general economic conditions and the economic uncertainty but also has something to do with the fact that the vehicles that European manufacturers are offering have perhaps failed to meet the requirements of the European market in recent years where fuel consumption, environmental friendliness and safety are concerned. That is why it is so important that this is now quickly rectified.
Please allow me to say something about the issue that Mrs Doyle mentioned. I am aware that there is an erroneous interpretation of the requirements pertaining to type-approval in a number of Member States - as you have just quite correctly pointed out - but it is an erroneous interpretation, one which is not in line with the legal framework that is in place. The Commission will ensure that the necessary clarifications are issued and that the negative consequences that you have highlighted, Mrs Doyle, will not occur.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am, of course, pleased by the congratulations, but I must say that, in the trialogue, you are only ever as strong or as quick as those you are working with. I am therefore happy to share the credit for Mr Bulfon's compliment with all of you.
I must say, however, and I think this is extremely important, that I did not feel pressurised by anyone, nor did I feel under political pressure. The only difficulty that there was in this legislative proposal - and I do not want to hide this, it was also discussed a little - was, of course, that of framing this ambitious legislation so that we would not be losing jobs in the European Union, but safeguarding them. This balance was not always easy to achieve on individual points, but I believe that, in the end, we did find a very sound middle ground solution that satisfies all the interests.
All the same, I have to say that, for all the processes that we have settled in trialogue over recent weeks or months, there was repeated criticism that things were moving too quickly. That is something that we could certainly discuss at the beginning of a parliamentary term and then stick to for that entire term, but there should be no criticism that processes are democratically unsound at the end of a term - the time when particular issues are being resolved - after three years of participation in such a process here in Parliament. I accept the criticism, but I think that this issue is something that would need to be resolved immediately after the elections for the entire parliamentary term.
It is also important for this proposal to be put back in the context of Mr Sacconi's proposal, which has been successfully passed. His proposal was about reducing the CO2 emissions from motor vehicles to 130 grams, with 10 grams to be envisaged for additional measures. One part of these additional measures has now been regulated. I cannot wait to see how we will take up the rest of these grams that have yet to be decided and what proposals the Commission will put forward for Parliament to decide upon.
I might add that, when it came to the issue of the transitional period, we had to find a middle path, from an economic point of view. We have not laid down the 30-month period conclusively, but instead, the Commission is to carry out another impact assessment for each individual type of tyre, on the basis of which we can then decide until when the deadline can run for each type. It is my belief that it makes the most sense economically to remove tyres lawfully produced in the European Union as quickly as possible from circulation, but only when the market really offers the proper potential to do that. I would like to close, therefore, by offering my sincere thanks, once again, to all those who were involved.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr Schwab for the balanced report he has compiled. This report meets the needs of the industry by creating simplified, transparent legislation through replacing no fewer than 50 basic directives, thereby reducing the administrative burden. We are therefore helping a competitive car industry.
It is important for all of us to make Europe's roads safer and reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries by introducing standard equipment. The ESP system must become accessible to everyone and no longer be an optional extra. Obviously, we must not forget either the impact on the environment which the new tyre pressure monitoring system will have, with its reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. This will also be accompanied by a reduction in noise and sound pollution in general. New technologies will enable us to have safer, greener cars.


Specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the report by Mrs Salinas García on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector and amending certain Regulations. C6-0075/2007.
Mr President, we are currently in the final and decisive phase for the approval of the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector. We launched the debate on 24 January 2007 and since then we have received lots of very valuable input, not least from the European Parliament and the report of Mrs Salinas García. I thank you for this and for your constant support for the general objectives and the general principles of the Commission proposal.
When considering the substance of your opinion, I have chosen to focus on a few issues to which you have given very special attention.
Firstly, on producer organisations, it is clear that both the Commission and the European Parliament believe that producer organisations should be maintained and even further reinforced in order to increase the degree of the concentration of the supply. This is absolutely fundamental if the sector is to match the huge concentration that we see these days in the retail sector. As you know, we have proposed a number of new initiatives in order to make our producer organisations much more attractive. We have proposed additional Community financing of 60%: firstly, for mergers between producer organisations and associations of producer organisations; secondly, for regions where the level of the concentration of the supply through producer organisations is below 20%; thirdly for organic farming; fourthly for new Member States and, finally, for the outermost regions.
I am aware that you have requested even more action to be included in the additional Community financial assistance of 60% to the operational funds, such as joint action between producer organisations or integrated production. However, what we have proposed will already make a very positive difference. I should like to stick to these measures in the first place. As you surely know, we also need to be attentive to the budgetary constraints.
On crisis prevention and management, I agree with you that it is one of the most sensitive points of the reform and I should like to thank you for the ideas that you propose in your opinion. However, I cannot accept the idea of a separate fund for crisis management and the need to define what we actually mean when we talk about a 'crisis'. A separate fund would result in a substantial budget increase and, moreover, will not contribute to further simplification.
With regard to the use of a percentage of the national reserve for crisis management, this is not acceptable either. The national reserve was created at the very beginning to accommodate particular situations in the framework of the single payment scheme and it is not appropriate to devote this budget to another objective or other measures.
However, I understand your call for more flexibility in order to facilitate crisis management. Rather than making a completely separate structure, I should therefore positively consider adding more flexibility to the structure proposed in our initial Commission proposal in order to make the scheme as efficient as possible and to avoid a major decline in prices. Nevertheless, I want to underline that we also need to bear in mind that any modification of the current proposal has to respect the overall budgetary constraints, as well as the need for simplification.
On the inclusion of fruit and vegetables for processing in the single payment scheme, you have requested an optional transitional period, in particular for tomatoes. You are also in favour of a separate payment for tomatoes for historical producers in the new Member States. I am open to accept a short transitional period in which Member States could decide to grant aid per hectare. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that full decoupling must be both the precondition and the end goal - so final decoupling at the end.
I am also aware that the soft-fruit sector is facing difficulties. The Commission analysis has shown that fragmentation of both production and marketing has contributed to the difficulties faced in recent years by the soft-fruit sector.
On the basis of this report we have considered that the best way to address the problem is to add incentives to increase the number of producer organisations in the new Member States, which is what we did in our original proposal. Nevertheless, taking into account the sensitivities of this soft-fruit sector, I am open to considering specific smaller support, but I want to make it absolutely clear that it must be transitional and limited to certain products.
Finally, on promotion of fruit and vegetables, I fully agree with you that this issue is of huge concern not only to agriculture but also to health and to consumer policies. We produce plenty of high-quality fruit and vegetables in the European Union, but our citizens do not consume enough of them, with growing consequences for their health. I would be in favour of a school fruit scheme to be implemented in line with the position taken by the Commission on 13 May 2007 in the White Paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition, weight and obesity-related health issues. However, before doing this we would need to carry out the necessary impact assessments of such a measure. I have asked my services to undertake such work immediately.
Those are my first comments and I am looking forward to a constructive discussion with the honourable Members of the European Parliament.
rapporteur. - (ES) Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking you, not just for being here, but also for your cooperation and willingness to work with me.
The truth is that we are dealing with the reform of a very important sector, which you know very well. It represents 17% of our end agricultural output, but it only receives about 3% of the aid.
It is true that the sector that we are discussing today is very dynamic. It is also, however, a very fragile sector, with structural problems, exposed to increasing external pressure and the pressure of large-scale distribution.
The report that we are debating today and that we will vote on tomorrow is the result of a long period of work. It is an open report, and I believe that this Parliament's position has always been open with regard to the Commission. We have always sought agreements, but at the same time it is a realistic report.
It is complicated, because we are dealing with forty different products for twenty-seven countries. It is no surprise that it received more than 380 amendments in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, but it is also the case that there were only two votes against it.
Not everything in your proposal, in the Commission's proposal, seems to us to be negative, by any means. It is very important that producer organisations should be seen as the cornerstone of the reform from the outset. The truth is, however, that in Parliament, and in the whole of the European Union's sector, there are certain problems that, in all of the Member States, we have seen as priorities within the reform.
Firstly, the decoupling of aid for processed products, as the Commissioner has quite rightly pointed out. The second problem is the lifting of the ban on growing fruit and vegetables in areas eligible for the single payment. And, above all, we in Parliament would stress the lack of a genuine crisis management mechanism.
I believe that the European Parliament has made a great effort to achieve consensus with a view to reaching agreements on these three issues.
Firstly, we are in favour of maintaining the current marketing rules. It is true that they should be rather simpler, but we are in favour of maintaining those marketing rules.
Parliament has expressed, and will express tomorrow, its opposition to the lifting of the ban on growing fruit and vegetables in eligible areas. At least until the Commission presents an impact study, as demanded by the Court of Justice.
We are calling for the strengthening of producer organisations, in the way that has already been mentioned: increasing their funding to 6%. And in cases of the 60% increase in assistance, as the Commissioner has quite rightly said, I hope that certain requests will be taken into account, such as integrated production or designations of origin.
Where we have achieved a great compromise, because it is very important, because it is a fragile sector, is on the need to create the Security Fund for crisis management.
Having heard what you have said, I believe that, right now, this is where Parliament's almost unanimous position differs most from that of the Commission.
We have expressed our support, and we continue to do so, for a crisis Security Fund that is open to all producers - including non-associated producers - and two-thirds funded by the European Union and a third by producer organisations.
We also stress the need for a price observatory. Our future in this sector does not lie in subsidies, but in the market. And we must have reliable and up-to-date information on the evolution of the markets.
Finally, decoupling, I am delighted to hear that there is at last a glimpse of the possibility of a transitional period. There are certain dual-use products, such as tomatoes and citrus fruits, which, under the initial proposal, could lead to the abandonment of production.
We therefore firmly advocate a transitional period, and let us hope that it is not as short as has been suggested here this evening, but sufficient for the sector to be able to continue adapting to the single payment scheme.
I hope that that voluntary transitional period can allow for some kind of partial decoupling that could be a transitional measure.
We also stress the need to strengthen aid for red fruits. I am also delighted to hear what you have said, because I believe that this is clearly a need that Parliament has indicated and the Commission has considered.
I would like to end by thanking everybody who has helped me during this year of work, the shadow rapporteurs and all of the officials from the European Commission for their contributions, for cooperating with me, the committee secretariat and everybody, because I believe that the report that we will vote on tomorrow, which is the result of a broad consensus, has also been enriched by the contributions of the other groups and of the whole of society.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Ladies and gentlemen, today, the fruit and vegetable sector is one of the most dynamic sectors of European agriculture, thanks in particular to the efforts of the farmers, the producers, to improve the marketing networks and to increase the quality of their products and concentrate supply.
In no way can it be argued that the fruit and vegetable sector relies on aid from Brussels. In fact it succeeds in a very aggressive market, owing to the fact that the people participating in it work hard, and the money they receive represents no more than 1% of the turnover of farms.
The great majority of these producers are not currently asking for subsidies or early retirement aid. What they are asking for and demanding are mechanisms for tackling the current problems, which can only get even worse in the future.
I hope you will allow me to remind you all that the fruit and vegetable sector is the great bargaining chip in the European Union's agricultural negotiations within the World Trade Organisation.
In the future, the current pressures in the market will get worse as the existing tariff barriers are dismantled.
I would therefore like to call upon the Member States to draw up appropriate crisis management mechanisms within the context of the reform of the sector that will probably be adopted next week at the Council of Agriculture Ministers.
As the rapporteur has already said, and as many of you also know and acknowledge, crisis management is a fashionable topic and it will be important in the future for all of the sectors of the common agricultural policy as a result of the dismantling of intervention measures.
In the case of fruit and vegetables, however, this problem also needs to be resolved urgently in view of the strong competition from third-country imports and the pressures resulting from large-scale distribution.
An imaginative solution needs to be found to help the sector to deal with the critical times ahead, and this Parliament is offering the solution in the report by Mrs Salinas.
This involves a specific fund for serious crises intended for the implementation of certain actions such as pension funds and to which the whole of the sector would have access. This would represent a very positive step, bearing in mind that we are not deviating from what we have done until now, which is co-responsibility for the producer.
I believe that, for the fruit and vegetables sector, this report proposes a pioneering form of crisis management that other sectors will have to copy in the future.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Mr President, reform of the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables is one of the last to be undertaken. It has still not been covered by the 2003 reform. It is also one of the most significant market reforms in the current Financial Perspective. I should like to congratulate Mrs Salinas García on a very objective report, which covers many issues of importance for both old and new Member States.
As my colleague has already dealt with all the points we wished to make in the House, I shall refer only to the soft fruit sector, which is of vital importance for the new Member States. The reform must include effective solutions for this sector, bearing in mind the need to ensure that growing this fruit in the Community will remain profitable and that Community growers can obtain a suitable level of income from it. Soft fruit is a delicate product and should be dealt with in the same way as other Community products considered delicate.
It is essential to apply different payments to the soft fruit sector beyond the SAPS financial envelope. Such a payment would be directed exclusively to soft fruit producers. Support in the form of separate area payments would lead to restructuring and improve the effectiveness and competitiveness of this sector. It would therefore stabilise the income of soft fruit growers.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I should first of all like to thank the rapporteur. I admire her for the way she has fought her way through the many amendments that have been tabled. We as the ALDE Group support the result as a whole, and hence the gist of the Commission proposals. Making producer organisations stronger is a good thing. The market of horticultural products is increasingly being dominated by large supermarkets and other trade organisations, and producers must combine forces in order to form a counterweight.
Most of the ALDE Group would beg to differ with the rapporteur and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the already much-debated crisis fund and crisis management in general. We think the Commission proposals are better. For starters, I would not know where the money would come from. Also in the long term, it is impossible to assume that any authority could be responsible for crisis management. The authority will always make a contribution - this has been provided for - but the producers will need to shoulder the lion's share of the responsibility. If, moreover, we encourage crisis management to be taken care of via the producer organisation, this will also draw in more members, which will at the same time mean that producer organisations will gain more power compared to traders and supermarkets. Our vote will therefore be different from what the Committee on Agriculture proposed in this respect.
I should once again like to stand up for quality policy. The Commissioner knows that this is a subject that is very close to my heart. After the last conference on this subject, I left in a frame of mind that was anything but optimistic, but I am heartened by the fact that an amendment concerning the need for a quality label for horticultural products, tabled by the ALDE Group, was adopted unanimously in the Agricultural Group by all parties. This is quite unique. With this support from the Committee on Agriculture, the Commissioner may therefore want to reconsider a quality policy for certain agricultural products, because we still believe that this is called for.
I am unaware of the latest developments as regards school fruit, but we thought the Commissioner's idea in this respect was endearing.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, this reform is justified but it is unfair. The principles laid down five years ago at Copenhagen are unfair to the new Member States. It was established that farmers in the new countries would receive several times less aid than those in the old Union. We agreed to this hoping that we would come to receive equal treatment in due course.
Subsequent reforms of the common agricultural policy have perpetuated the division into more and less favoured countries, however. The reform of the fruit and vegetable market is one example of this. The old Union was receiving hundreds of millions of euro and will continue to do so. The new Union receives token sums. Allow me to pose the following questions: where is the actual aid for soft fruit producers in the new Member States to be found? Why has the Commission not responded to the European Parliament resolution of October 2006?
Much has been said about supporting the European Constitution and the danger that failure to do so will lead to the emergence of a two-speed Europe. In fact, as far as agriculture is concerned we already have a two-class Europe, namely the more favoured old Union that retains the status it created for itself in the past and the less favoured new Union that cannot expect equal treatment.
We tabled an amendment that would include cherries and apples for processing in the reform of soft fruit production, accompanied by a EUR 148 million increase in the national envelopes. I call on the House to support this amendment. At the level of the Union as a whole, it does not represent much money. It is a matter of principle, however, not of money. There must be an end to this division into better and worse Member States. We respect the Accession Treaties, but new principles must be introduced, transcending the division into 15 more favoured Member States and 12 less favoured ones. All 27 Member States must enjoy the same rights. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group, bringing together members from both old and new Member States, is resolute in its demand for this. We call for a reform that is not only justified but also fair.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I in turn must especially thank the Commissioner and the rapporteur of the report that we are about to examine in this Chamber, but my group is unlikely to vote for it because of two points that I should like to highlight.
The first is that this reform, which is so important for a sector that employs thousands, if not millions, of workers in both agriculture and processing, may change the landscape completely once we have directives on climate change. If it is true that Europe is rightly starting to expand alternative forms of production - biodiesel, biofuels, and the production of mass and biomass from wood - then it means that several million hectares will be taken out of agricultural and food production for human and animal consumption. That is already happening in large countries like China: it was in the news a few days ago.
The second point is the fact that the reform in question does not address one of the problems raised in this Chamber, which is that in recent years the profit from agricultural production has all gone to commercial businesses and large multinationals. According to some statistics, between 60% and 70% of agricultural profit is kept by the distribution chain.
The reform we are examining does not address this problem. Those are the basic reasons that we want to raise, and we are therefore unlikely to vote for the report in this Chamber tomorrow.
(SK) I would like to praise the efforts of my colleague, Mrs García, in drawing up her report into the proposal for a Council regulation for establishing specific provisions in respect of the fruit and vegetable sector.
The heated debates within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development about this proposal identified certain risks associated with the substance of the proposal and, in particular, risks arising from the philosophy behind this piece of legislation. The most serious risks concern the early practical implementation of some of the regulations and the low level of EU budget participation. At stake is a mere 3.1% of the budget, while the sector accounts for 17% of the EU's total agricultural output. In marketing terms, lettuce, radishes and small fruits - virtually the entire fruits and vegetables mix - are the most sensitive of agricultural commodities, and ensuring their smooth transfer from the farm to the table is a daunting logistical task. Therefore, the European Commission should not delude itself into thinking that in future it might be able to transfer to farmers the entire responsibility for fruit and vegetable CMO.
Another major risk of the proposal under consideration is the fact that it puts the new Member States at a disadvantage. The problem is that the new Member States do not have functioning producer organisations, and it will take several years for them to become fully operational. Fruit and vegetable producers in the EU-15 have over the decades gradually learned to interact with trading systems and have become trading partners of equal standing. One can reasonably expect that if the proposal were implemented in its present form, the output of the new Member States, already massively reduced, would shrink still further. This is why I believe that the outlined risks should be addressed as a matter of priority when amending the proposal.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me add my thanks to the rapporteur, for the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector was truly not an easy subject. As the previous speakers have pointed out, fruit and vegetables account for a very large share of our agricultural output. These reforms will enable us to take a major step towards the modernisation of European agriculture in this sector too.
Particularly in view of the increasingly fierce international competition resulting from globalisation, it must be our prime objective to enhance the competitiveness of European fruit and vegetable growers while safeguarding the availability to consumers of high-quality European produce at reasonable prices. One means of doing this is the creation of producer organisations, which enable growers to market their products more effectively. Measures to promote fruit and vegetable consumption are particularly worthy of support, because they are also beneficial to public health.
Mrs Gräßle of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will table an oral amendment tomorrow in which she will ask the Commission not to wait until the scheduled date of 2013 before compiling an initial report on the execution of the title covering producer organisations, the operating fund and the operational programmes. In fact, we want to have that first report by the end of 2010, followed by progress reports at three-yearly intervals. We seek transparency, and we would also like to be sure that support is actually reaching our intended targets. Seven years is too long to wait for that assurance.
It is therefore our responsibility to safeguard the future of Europe's fruit and vegetable growers by creating a safety net with the aid of targeted assistance in order to combine sustainable production with high quality and a healthy environment.
(EL) Mr President, first I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Salinas Garcia, on her exceptional report, and the Commission, which truly has made a serious and brave proposal in the fruit and vegetable sector. I say 'brave proposal', because it is a sector which has a clear structure with the producer organisations and operational programmes and the main issue raised is that of decoupling.
I should like to highlight, both at a personal level and on behalf of our group, the two basic issues which we shall support. Firstly, a stable financial budget and, secondly, a stable timeframe for reform up to 2013. Subversive policies seeking a transitional reform period in fruit and vegetables, which is something which has not happened in any other product, will I am absolutely certain - from the point of view of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament - not be accepted.
I have just two comments: you know very well, Commissioner, that Mrs Salinas's proposals are not a very far cry from the Council's proposals and I shall come to the specific issue of the crisis management fund, which I would like you to think about much more positively. The crisis management fund does not need additional resources, but it does need to be outside the operational programmes, otherwise there will be total confusion.
(LT) It is understood that reform of the common agricultural policy is essential; however, implementation of the reform is being applied to EU Member States with different levels of agricultural subsidies. New Member States, which get almost three times less in payouts than the old Member States, and having significantly worse exit situations, are obliged to reform their agriculture by further worsening the state of it. A general payout scheme is being offered as a proposed solution for reform of the fruit and vegetable market. For the new Member States this will mean even smaller subsidies than there have been to date, and even less chance of competing in the market. The requirement for fruit and vegetable producers to establish producer organisations in order to receive EU subsidies seriously distorts the fruit and vegetable market. Retail networks may dictate their terms and refuse to accept for resale the produce of small producers. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the regulation proposes to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables by encouraging their use among certain sectors of the population - young people, school-age children and teenagers. What about the rest of the population?
(PL) Mr President, some appropriate action has at last been taken with regard to the situation in the fruit and vegetable sector, which is generally perceived to be unfair. Following lengthy discussions, an anti-dumping price for Chinese strawberries was introduced. It was unfortunate that it only applied to such a short period of time though. Next, a minimum price was introduced. Again, it is unfortunate that this price was so low.
We are now presented with an opportunity to allocate additional payments to cherries and sweet cherries, and also to soft fruit such as raspberries, strawberries, blackcurrants and gooseberries. Without these payments many growers affected by the severe frosts will most certainly be bankrupted. In its Amendment 116 to the regulation the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development suggests aid amounting to EUR 120.77 per hectare. In my view this is too low a figure. It will not deal effectively with the growers' problems. Aid should be increased to EUR 400 per hectare.
Apple orchard owners were affected by the severe frosts too. Their predicament is also a difficult one, and they are hoping for some aid. That is why I urge the House to adopt Amendment 113, which constitutes a response to all those hoping for aid.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I am delighted that you are here and I thank you for the efforts you are making.
I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on a job very well done.
The fruit and vegetable sector is extremely important for us. However, I should like to highlight certain points:
Firstly, in a sector such as the fruit and vegetable sector, which includes the most sensitive agricultural products, financing crisis management is extremely important. If it is to be integrated, it should not be included in the operational programmes and be cofinanced by producers; it should be financed from additional Community resources and be extended to the field of prevention, as I also requested as shadow rapporteur when we debated future support measures for agricultural production eighteen months ago.
Secondly, the obligatory inclusion of agri-environmental actions in the operational programmes of producer organisations, as a precondition to their approval, is a positive move. However, setting compulsory expenditure at one-fifth of the budget for the actions is excessive and should be reduced.
Thirdly, we should at some point perhaps turn our attention to small crops, to small-scale producers, such as those growing saffron and mastic in Chios. We must also look at small-scale producers.
Fourthly, for producer organisations, financing at a rate of 60% in under-organised areas is positive, but capping at 4.1% of the value of the marketed production is marginal and will not allow them to honour the new, important duties they are taking on. On the same subject, we should also refer to the difficulties faced by the Aegean islands, which is why they need to be treated with a certain degree of flexibility.
Fifthly, information and promotion campaigns aimed at our youth in the European Union are not just to increase the consumption of fruit and vegetables; we have a very poor diet and our youth must adopt a healthier diet.
Finally, I have the following to say: I should like to point out that we are totally against the oral amendment which may be tabled tomorrow calling for a report to be drafted in 2010 on the operation of the new COM, because this means a different approach to fruit and vegetables, while the other COMs have been regulated quite differently. This is unacceptable under the principles of the European Union.
(HU) The excellent report by Mrs Salinas García indicates that this is fundamentally a good report. I will mention four positive points: the national envelope system, support for producer organisations, risk management and the school fruit scheme.
This would be a very good reform if I did not come from one of the new Member States. But this reform is discriminatory in several areas against the new Member States. On the one hand it is discriminatory as regards direct payments. For example, Hungary provides 2% of the Union's vegetable production, and receives 0.61% of the costs of vegetable production.
The other area of discrimination has to do with processed products. Neither Polish berry fruit, nor sour cherries, nor the products of the new Member States have been included among the produce that is to be processed. And now these monies will be distributed on a historical basis, and it will be primarily three of the old Member States who will receive 800 million of the 1.4 billion. This is a very great injustice toward the new Member States, and I ask that it be rectified.
(PL) Mr President, Mrs Salinas García's report is very significant for the agricultural production sector. Unfortunately, however, it does not apply equal terms to producers in the old and new Member States. Supporting farmers by way of direct payments is particularly important for countries where the structure of agriculture is fragmented, with small holdings and monoculture, and where the income barely suffices to sustain farming activities. These holdings operate in a traditional and environmentally-friendly manner. The amended regulation should even out the opportunities for payments to farmers in the old and new Member States.
It is hard to anticipate the effectiveness of fruit and vegetable production. Products of this nature can easily be damaged, prices fluctuate and there is competition from third countries. Climate change and increasingly frequent natural disasters also impact on effectiveness. By way of example I could refer to the spring frosts in Poland which affected 70% of currant, plum, pear and sweet cherry blossom. Polish fruit growers and market gardeners estimate that this year's losses will amount to 60%. Amendments 6, 7 and 12 to the regulation concerning Recitals 11, 13 and 18 and also Amendment 113 are particularly worthy of support.
(PL) Mr President, today's debate on the report concerning reform of the fruit and vegetable market and tomorrow's vote on the matter bring to an end several months of work within the European Parliament. I believe that during this period we have succeeded in raising awareness of the problems affecting the Polish soft fruit market and convincing most Members of the House of the need to introduce appropriate support mechanisms. Such mechanisms would serve to restructure the sector and improve its competitiveness. Two features of this sector in the new Member States are the fragmentation of production and the fact that there are no strong groups or associations of producers. In addition, the sector is particularly vulnerable at times of crisis.
The existing support instruments and those proposed in the draft reform of the COM of fruit and vegetables do not provide sufficient aid and do not offer effective solutions to the problems arising in those markets. We are therefore requesting special payments for growers of soft fruit and cherries intended for processing, so as to improve incomes and stabilise the fruit and vegetable market.
I urge the Commissioner to study Amendment 132, which I tabled jointly with Mrs Herranz García on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. I also ask for support for Amendment 122, on aid for the market of tomatoes for processing in the new Member States under the SAPS system. Adoption of this amendment would ensure that tomato producers in those countries retained the aid they are currently receiving.
Commissioner, there are two issues Polish soft fruit growers cannot understand. The first is why they have to wait so long for relevant proposals. The second is why the Commission cannot even come up with a few tens of millions euro to support the soft fruit sector, when it has an annual budget in excess of EUR 1.5 billion. Strawberries, raspberries and currants are just as important for Polish farmers as oranges, mandarins and figs are for their opposite numbers in southern Europe. Commissioner, we earnestly hope that at the forthcoming Council of Agriculture Ministers of the 27 Member States of the European Union you will propose appropriate support for this group of farmers. I trust the negotiations will prove fruitful.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the support given by Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to the proposals contained in the Salinas García report is proof of, firstly, the rapporteur's excellent work - and I add my own congratulations - and, secondly the very positive spirit of compromise displayed by MEPs from almost all of the political groups.
I particularly welcome Parliament's recommendations on crisis management and on strengthening producer organisations. I welcome the adoption of my proposal to establish a transitional period aimed at ensuring the continued viability of tomato cultivation in some Member States, in particular my country, Portugal. I hope the Commission will take this on board.
I am disappointed, however, that it was not possible to go further on other equally important issues, such as greater flexibility in the management of financial resources earmarked for operational programmes and positive discrimination, which should have been given to the Member States in which those programmes are particularly poorly organised.
Your speech at the start of this debate, Commissioner, made me fear that the aspect of Parliament's political support for the proposals has not been correctly interpreted, but I trust that common sense and a spirit of compromise will ultimately prevail in the Council and the Commission.
- (PL) Mr President, the fruit and vegetable sector is very important for the agriculture of the Union in general and of countries like Poland in particular. Unfortunately, the proposed solutions are not beneficial for us.
Firstly, as part of the significant changes to be introduced in this sector, it is proposed that the existing support for the old Member State be maintained, but the new ones are to be treated as if they were not actually Members, but still mere applicants. Supporting the national envelopes of countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain with sums of between EUR 316 million and EUR 167 million, whilst Poland's envelope is to be increased by barely EUR 6.7 million even though it has a large fruit and vegetable sector must surely run counter to the principle of European solidarity.
Secondly, there is no tradition of producers' groups in the new Member States. This is bound to mean that a sum of almost EUR 700 million a year will go mainly to producers' groups and associations in the old Member States.
Finally, the reform fails to deal with the issue of the Union's market becoming increasingly open to imports of fruit and vegetables from third countries. The European Union has an annual trade deficit in excess of EUR 8 billion in this sector. These imports are often sold at dumping prices, which is detrimental to the production of fruit and vegetables within the European Union.
Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on her report.
From my point of view there are still some outstanding issues to be clarified. We must be able to ensure that the impact within different regions in Member States is not too harsh. The mechanism of this proposal is complicated for those regions that applied the hybrid area-based model for the single farm payment, including my own area, and this, in particular, must be resolved. This is a difficult, complex area that must be addressed.
There are many different outside pressures that impinge on the marketing process. High among those is the purchasing power of the large supermarket chains, where one supplier or producer is put against another to drive the price down. There are also those who import cheap produce, turn it around and add value to produce of unknown origin. We seem to be unable to stop this.
I am now going to be rather parochial. Last week I led a delegation to my local minister in Northern Ireland to raise the plight of mushroom growers in that area. Four years ago in Northern Ireland we had over 226 mushroom growers, today we have 40 - an 80% drop in those involved in the industry. I have to ask whether anyone cares, and I have come to the conclusion that the answer is no. Farming families have been destroyed and their incomes done away with. They have been totally disregarded by those capable of importing cheap mushrooms, adding value and selling them to the supermarkets, which pretend that they are local.
If we stand back and allow such a situation to continue in this and other areas, we will totally destroy the fabric of rural society as we know it. These commodities keep families and communities together. We destroy them at our peril; we must defend rural society.
Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur. My colleague Mr Nicholson has not exactly stolen my thunder, but I want to repeat some of his thunder, and the Commissioner will know that I am like a long playing record. I support the idea of producer groups but I am not at all convinced that we will ever have the matching power of the retail sector. I have said it before and I repeat it now that the Commission is unwilling to take on the elephant in the room, i.e. the very powerful retail sector in Europe which is particularly powerful in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
After you launched your debate on this particular subject we had farmers in Ireland on television declaring that they would no longer grow fruit and vegetables because there was no profit to be made in it because they could not get the prices they needed. However, let us see what happens from this reform. I hope that this report which we propose for 2010 will look at the impact in terms of the balance of power, which currently lies in the wrong direction.
The idea of consumption and health is a very positive one but I think every time we tell the European public that it is healthy to eat fruit and vegetables they seem to eat less of them, so we need to think of a different message. I like the idea of school fruit schemes and I would ask that your impact assessment take into account the many pilot projects. There is one in particular in Ireland that works and you probably have details of it, but good luck with it and I hope it works for the fruit and vegetable producers of Europe.
Mr President, I would like to conclude quickly, because it is late.
I would like to stress again the very constructive cooperation that we have had on the food and vegetable reform. I think your opinion supports the general line of the Commission proposals and the improvements that are being contemplated.
I would like to make a few comments because I am sure that some Members of this Parliament did not listen to my first speech, when I talked about the soft fruit sector. I made it clear that I am aware of the difficulties in the soft fruit sector within the European Union. I am ready to take into account the sensitivity of the sector and to try to find money within the budget to support this sector for a transitional period. But do not expect the figures that you mentioned. I think you said EUR 800. This cannot be achieved within the budget. However, I have clearly said that I will do my very best to find a solution.
I believe that the anti-dumping measures taken in April have clearly been a step in the right direction. Problems faced due to frost will be handled separately. It is possible to deal with specific situations involving climatic catastrophes within the state aid rules, so we will try to handle this issue separately.
A question was raised on funding. In my opinion, trying to create a fund outside the producer organisations is not really simplification. As you know, simplification is very high on the Commission's agenda. It will be a very complex instrument and we have to take into account the fact that we have to act within an annual budget. We could lose quite a lot of money on the fund's construction because it is multi-annual, but I am sure that we will find a decent solution and a crisis management tool that can work efficiently.
I hope that it will be possible to achieve a political agreement at the Council meeting next Monday and Tuesday. I am quite sure that we will manage to find a political agreement that will benefit the whole fruit and vegetable sector within the European Union, so that it will have a sustainable future, which, I presume, is what we all want.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written statements (Article 142)
in writing. - (PL) It is now three years since the new Member States acceded to the European Union, but they are still being discriminated against in terms of budget appropriations for the fruit and vegetable market. This is clear from the size of the payments allocated per hectare of land devoted to growing fruit and vegetables. In 2005, the old Member States (EU-15) received EUR 561 per hectare, whilst the new ones (EU-10) only received EUR 20 per hectare. The poorer countries therefore receive 28 times less support than the richer ones.
There is no reason for such discrimination. The new Member States have introduced many important and specific products into the Union. At the same time they experienced and are continuing to experience problems regarding the profitability of these types of products. Amongst other reasons, the problems are due to cheap imports from third countries and the fragmentation of production. The new countries therefore had good reason to expect that their difficulties would be recognised and that they would be able to benefit from the same wide range of support as the old Member States.
The European Commission has conducted missions and undertaken a series of consultations and studies. Nonetheless, the Commission's proposal for reform of the market still discriminates against the new Member States. The Commission has also disregarded Parliament. In its resolution of 11 May 2005 this House called for Union support for soft fruit, cherries, sweet cherries and apples intended for processing to be provided at the earliest opportunity.
Discriminatory action against the new Member States on the fruit and vegetable market is detrimental not only to growers in the new Member States, but also to the Union as a whole and to its consumers.


Order of business: see Minutes
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have a question for you concerning the European Council. We have heard that at the meeting of the European Council you said that Parliament agrees that the vote on the President of the Commission should take place on 15 July and the vote on the remainder of the Commission should be held once the Treaty of Lisbon has been adopted.
I would like to know whether or not this is true and, if it is true, on what authority you made these statements.
Mrs Frassoni, as you yourself were present, I am sure you will recall that we discussed this matter at the Conference of Presidents. There was only one objection with respect to 15 July, which came from you. All the other group chairmen shared the view expressed in my statement before the Council. In any case, you may read the exact wording I used in my speech. The speech is available to all MEPs and to the public.


Adjournment of the session
(The sitting was closed at 4.20 p.m.)


15. European Central Bank Annual Report (2005) (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment 7:
(DE) Mr President, may I make just a very brief interjection, since this report is not exactly an unimportant one, and ask just how legitimate a vote is when fewer than half the Members are present for it? I have no desire to waste the House's time, since the previous President wasted quite enough of it already.
Yes, Mr Alvaro, I note your concern, but we have checked that there is a quorum in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and the votes are valid.
- Before the vote on Amendment 11:
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, with regard to Amendment 12 on the subject of the post market and tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we wish to table an oral amendment.
I will say it in English. Rather than 'its own settlement infrastructure', we should say, 'a settlement infrastructure'.
(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)
That concludes the vote.
Mr President, I should just like to thank you very much for the fast and efficient way in which you have organised business since you took the Chair.
Those are the kinds of speeches we like to hear when we are in the Chair!
(Laughter)
Mr President, this is just to say that I was mistaken on my last vote. I thought we were voting on the amendment instead of the final vote on the Berès report. I voted against when I should have voted in favour. This is just for the record. Thank you for your efficiency.