President. – The next item is the report (A5-0124/2000) by Mrs Schierhuber, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops to include flax and hemp grown for fibre [COM(1999) 576 – C5-0280/1999 – 1999/0236(CNS)] and on the proposal for a Council regulation on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp grown for fibre [COM(1999) 576 – C5-0281/1999 – 1999/0237(CNS)].

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at first sight the importance of the flax and hemp sector may perhaps not be obvious, particularly to those colleagues who work less frequently on agricultural matters. Flax and hemp are crops with a very rich tradition in Europe, whose popularity has nevertheless declined over the years and whose versatility is only now being rediscovered. It is precisely the possibilities which this branch of agriculture offers of developing products with a promising future which we need to support at European level. Insulation for houses, filling materials for vehicle bodywork and presses for furniture manufacture are just some of the examples of this modern technology. The production of these materials from renewable raw materials should offer a real alternative to synthetically-produced ones and, at the same time, provide a new and attractive source of income for farmers as suppliers of those raw materials.

The need for reform is justified, above all, by misuses of funds and subsidy fraud in recent years. I am firmly opposed to this subsidy hunting and strict controls are necessary to ensure compliance with legal provisions. All the same, in my opinion, the Commission proposals overshoot the mark a little.

Allow me briefly to outline the basic considerations underlying my report. Area payments should be set at EUR 126/t – or EUR 600/ha – and should only be disbursed if proof of delivery to the processor is furnished. The area payments are being established under the regulation on the support system for producers of arable crops and, for this reason, this regulation also needs to be adjusted to take account of the specific characteristics of flax and hemp. It goes without saying that the regional base areas envisaged in this regulation need to be expanded to incorporate the areas for flax and hemp. Since flax and hemp are mainly grown for non-food purposes and no surpluses are produced, there should be no set-aside obligation, because set-aside serves as an instrument to regulate markets where surpluses are possible.

The processing aid which is to be paid out to the primary processor will only be granted if proof can be provided that processing has taken place within the last 18 months. Since this aid is supposed to take account of the economic viability of the sector, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development proposes setting this at EUR 120/t for long flax fibre and EUR 70/t for short flax fibre and hemp. Of course, it is not only the premium for long fibres, but also that for short fibres which needs to be secured as a long-term measure because it is precisely short fibres which are of prime importance for innovative projects.

Commissioner, the national maximum quantities and the maximum quantity for the EU, which the Commission is proposing, need to be reconsidered. The maximum quantities for each Member State should be calculated on the basis of existing processing capacities and adjusted to take account of planned processing capacities for which irreversible investments have already been made.

Allow me to make one further comment on hemp because there is still some misunderstanding here. There is no risk of drugs being cultivated in Europe and the use of hempseed for nutritional purposes is deeply rooted in certain regions. The existing control mechanisms and limits are sufficient, in my view, to prevent hemp from being cultivated for the production of psychotropic substances. Specialities have developed in the individual regions – such as hempseed oil and hemp beer – which help to enrich regional identity through the food chain.

Mr President, I should once more like to point out that a reform, which is admittedly necessary, of the flax and hemp sector, which, on account of its multi-functionality, is so important for the future of European agriculture and for the future of farmers as suppliers of raw materials for new spheres, must not be allowed to render the entire sector unprofitable. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development adopted this report by a large majority. That is why I should like to extend my warmest thanks to all those who supported me when I was drawing up this report.

  Maat (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, according to Mrs Schierhuber’s present report, if something goes wrong with a certain regulation in Europe, in this case flax, it is quite possible to ensure that that regulation can remain intact by means of new proposals. Flax, like hemp, is a special product, with a long European tradition. The mere fact that both my trousers and jacket are made of linen and flax which is processed in Flanders and partly in Zeeland, and grown in France, bears out this product’s long-standing tradition.

The reason we are having to hold this debate is to do with the fact that the regulation has gone off the rails. We all know what happened to short flax. We also know that that derailment occurred in Southern Europe and we need to be prepared to adapt the policy.

But what is now happening with the Commission’s proposal is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People have overstepped the mark. At the same time, it is quite possible to tighten the flax and hemp regulations so that we can manage on a normal budget such as the one we have had over the past couple of years and, despite this, continue to grow flax and hemp in Europe at a profit.

I am saying this because, although the cultivation of flax and hemp is traditional, they are also used in special applications in linen for clothing and in other applications in the non-food sector. I am thinking of dashboards and bumpers for cars. At the same time, they form a true complement to agricultural policy. They are special products which offer a great deal of added value and employment. It is exactly because of these three facets that we have to be so much more careful about drafting a sound regulation.

This is why I give my full backing to Mrs Schierhuber’s report. The amounts which have been mentioned guarantee that cultivation remains profitable and also ensure sound processing. What we need is tighter control on processing to ensure that malpractices are prevented in future.

I would like to end on a historical note. My country suffered an eighty-year war at the hands of Spain, which was eventually settled with the Peace of Münster. The people who met round the table came from the southern Netherlands – Belgium as it is known today, – the northern Netherlands – the Netherlands as we know it today – and Spain, and all three wore linen jackets, most probably made in Flanders, the linen being grown in Northern France and Belgium. An eighty-year conflict failed to destroy the cultivation of flax along the North Sea coast. Surely, we cannot afford to let the current regulation go under on account of a minor derailment in Spain which has meanwhile been rectified and which has led to crops being cultivated there over an area reduced to 50 000 hectares. I would like a new flax regulation for Europe to reflect this historical awareness that was achieved with the Peace of Münster.

  Rodríguez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, we agree with the objectives pursued in the Commission’s proposal on the new regulation on flax and hemp: to regulate and balance the markets, simplify the common agricultural policy and prevent fraud. However, we do not agree with the chosen method. This is because we consider that this proposal, since the amendments improving it, which were presented by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, have not been accepted, may lead to the total disappearance of hemp and flax crops in small- and medium-sized holdings, and as an alternative crop in certain areas of the Union.

We believe, Commissioner, that it is unacceptable that, in order to put an end to fraud, we should seek to end cultivation within a certain sector. This is a good time to point out that the best way to combat fraud is through the total transparency of public aid and of the investigations into fraud that are under way, and publishing the names of fraudsters, as the only way of preventing all farmers and the whole of the sector from having to pay for the consequences of fraud on the part of a few speculators.

The inclusion of flax and hemp within the general regulations on herbaceous plants requires the establishment of a single yield for all areas of the European Union. The existence of different yields in northern and southern areas, in the different regions of the Union, may lead to real discrimination in payments per surface area with regard to this crop. Therefore, we request that the inclusion of an average yield be accepted for all regions of the Union, and that this be the average yield for cereals.

With regard to aid for processing, we feel that it is completely inappropriate that there should be transitional aid for the processing of short-fibre flax, as the Commission proposes, which would end in 2006. We believe that it should be long-term aid and that it should be brought into line with the aid for the processing of long-fibre flax, which is the only way of guaranteeing the commercial production of short-fibre flax in an industrial sector which provides a genuine alternative to synthetic products.

Commissioner, we are in complete agreement on the need for stabilisers with regard to this crop, but we completely disagree with the national guaranteed quantities established in the Commission’s proposal, since we feel that they are absolutely inadequate and represent quite the opposite of the actual situation in each of the countries. We therefore also ask you to consider the proposal presented by the Committee on Agriculture.

Lastly, we absolutely agree with the existence of controls in this sector. Therefore, the existence, in every single case, of the sales contract between the farmer and the processor, seems to us to be essential. We are therefore voting against the report with regard to the disappearance of these contracts. The existence of a contract is the best way of proving that the crop has been sold and processed.

  Pesälä (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber, for this report, not least because it takes into consideration processing in those countries in particular, which, as Members of the EU, have also taken up the cultivation of flax. It is quite natural that they have considered the market and consequently also the support for and emphasis on processing to be matters of paramount importance, particularly in the case of short-fibre flax, which can be used for buildings and as insulation.

I would also like to say I agree with the previous speaker, Mrs Rodríguez Ramos, regarding average yields. The average yields of flax and hemp are very similar across Europe, in the North as well as the South. There are no great differences between them. As far as cereals are concerned, however, the differences are considerable. Such being the case, it would be unreasonable if the fringe areas – i.e. the areas around the Mediterranean and the North – were to be placed in an unequal position with regard to aid payable on the basis of area in the case of hemp and flax, which represents such small-scale production in the context of agricultural production as a whole. Amendment No 38 is therefore particularly sensible; I endorse it and hope that it will receive wide support, expressly in order to prevent the Mediterranean and Nordic countries from being placed in a position of disadvantage in comparison with the central regions of the European Union, as far as this area of production is concerned.

  Wyn (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address Parliament on this very important issue. The main thing to stress is that misuse of funds in one place should not prevent innovation continuing in other areas. Excellent schemes are already being developed and should be supported.

In an unstable agricultural industry, the opportunities offered by flax and hemp in a developing market for natural fibres should not be lost. It will provide farmers with the opportunity to diversify – something that they have continually been urged to do by respective Member State governments and by the European Parliament – to produce new employment possibilities. In my own nation, Wales, flax processing plants are already being established using European Union aid. The report from our Agricultural Committee also includes amendments to extend grant aid for producing flax and hemp to non-arable land, thus providing opportunities to diversify areas of the European Union unable to obtain monetary support under the present regime.

This is a crucial matter as it affects thousands of hectares of European land with low productive possibilities. For example, 80% of the land mass of my nation, Wales, is non-arable. The higher than average incidence of rainfall there makes it ideal terrain for growing short-fibre flax and yet it could not apply for European Union support under prior regulations. Its peripheral location, something which has already been stressed here from other areas, and its small family farm units having to compete in a wider market, coupled with the high value of sterling, has meant that it has lost 80% of its income in less than three years. The importance of flax production being subsidised in such areas of the European Union cannot be overemphasised. I would like to thank the rapporteur for accepting our amendments in this regard.

We also reject quotas and a ceiling for this production, as this would limit the possibilities to develop diversification and employment possibilities in disadvantaged regions. We also believe there should be a balance of support between farmers and processors. The rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber, has agreed to put a limit of EUR 600 per hectare to farmers directly, provided that the farmer proves to the competent authorities, within 18 months after having applied for the subsidy, that he has delivered the fibre to a processor. We also agreed if this proof could not be provided to the competent authorities within that period, the subsidy should stay at the level of the premia for set-aside land.

I congratulate the rapporteur and call on the European Parliament to support the Agriculture Committee's report.

  Jové Peres (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, first and foremost I would like to thank Mrs Schierhuber for the work she has done, the main merit of which is the fact that it introduces some sensible elements into a proposal which makes no sense whatsoever.

It is true that the regulation in force is deficient in terms of control, and some people have taken advantage of these deficiencies in order to obtain aid which stretches the bounds of legality. These situations obviously required modifications which logically should have concentrated on strengthening controls. Nevertheless, we have seen another example of the unique way in which the Commission fulfils its function of producing legislative proposals.

The Commission’s proposal takes an extraordinary approach: instead of strengthening the control mechanisms, it abolishes aid for short-fibre flax. To be honest, the Commission is behaving here like the doctor who proposes decapitation as a cure for a headache.

Furthermore, the Commission’s proposal, if put into practice, would lead to the disappearance of the crop in some Member States, which would have a negative affect on many farmers who had found an alternative crop which did not produce surpluses and which was destined for non-food use.

In Spain, for example, practically all flax grown is short-fibre flax, since the heat and the lack of rainfall restrict the growth of the plant. Furthermore, the dryness of the ground in summer makes it practically impossible to pull up the plant together with its roots in order to obtain long fibre. Furthermore, short-fibre flax is perfectly suited to dry conditions, there is a certain market for it and, at least in theory, it is the type of production which we are intending to promote.

The elimination of aid for short-fibre flax would hinder the innovative non-food use of agricultural products, fundamentally affecting regions with low rainfall and more difficult conditions. The Commission is therefore proposing to concentrate aid in the areas with the best conditions and deny it to the least-favoured ones.

I would like to remind the Commission of Article 158 (ex Article 130A) of the Treaty, which lays down that social and economic cohesion must be strengthened, and the differences in levels of development between the different regions and the underdevelopment of the least-favoured regions, including the rural areas, should be reduced.

Lastly, I think it is essential that the Commission’s proposals are not accepted; however, in any event, the inclusion in the regulations on herbaceous crops would lead to unfair situations as a result of the use of yields conditioned by drought.

Mrs Rodríguez Ramos’ amendments therefore seem to me to be a good solution to the problem.

  Van Dam (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, over the past couple of years, we have seen a sharp increase in the acreage of fibre flax and hemp as a result of subsidy-hunting in Member States such as Great Britain and Spain. Producers in those countries destroyed their harvest, whilst they pocketed the subsidies for the crops. It is only right that the Council clamped down on this type of misuse of Community funding by amending the flax regulation.

The original objective of production support was to bolster the traditional fibre flax crops which are mainly grown in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. It is vital not to lose sight of this objective. We therefore reject the proposal that the Committee on Budgets outlined in its opinion, namely to pitch the support granted to short- and long-fibre flax at the same level. The production costs for long-fibre flax are higher than those for short-fibre flax and for hemp. It is precisely with the short-fibre variant that farmers fiddled the system.

We can go along with the proposal to bring the cultivation of flax under the general support regulation for arable crops. But the cereal support level is too low for long-fibre flax and therefore acts as a disincentive to producers to grow this flax variant. This is why we have made our approval of this report dependent upon whether the support level for producers of long-fibre flax will be double that for cereal. As long as support for processors continues to be varied according to whether the crop concerned is short- or long-fibre, we can do away with this differentiation in the support for producers.

An increase in support should, however, be accompanied by the following three control measures. Firstly, a compulsory contract with processors who, in turn, must prove that the flax has been processed. Secondly, a certain quota per Member State, shared between long-fibre and short-fibre flax and hemp. Thirdly, the use of certified seed.

Finally, I would point out that, as it is late in the season, this regulation will not be able to come into force until the 2000-2001 season.

IN THE CHAIR: MR MARINHO
Vice-President

  Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we are discussing a Commission proposal on the reform of the COM on flax and hemp in two respects. Firstly, the Commission is explaining the need for the reform in terms of an increase in budgetary cost. I do not believe that that is the best way to try to justify the need for a reform, although I agree that it is needed. Amongst the objectives which this reform should have, as well as simplifying and updating the regulations, is also improving control, which is something we always forget about later on.

The Commission proposal offers a good, coherent and precise analysis of the sector in the European Union. It explains the importance of flax and hemp production from both an economic and an ecological point of view. However, it seems to me that the Commission’s considerations with regard to hemp fibre and short-fibre flax are not very realistic, either as regards its future viability or its range of uses.

However, the thing that seems least appropriate to me is the proposal on processing aid. In this case I would like to draw your attention to the increasing number of uses for this type of fibre, as several speakers have already pointed out. If we were to follow that route, the European Union, which already falls short in terms of using this type of fibre, would cease to use it altogether, at least in some countries. Today I read in one of my country’s newspapers that one of the autonomous regions has abandoned more than 95% of its cultivation of short-fibre flax. These were the words of the local Minister for Agriculture for that region. This type of situation will become inevitable if this amendment is put into practice.

With regard to payment for processing, I cannot agree with the Commission’s proposal, either in terms of the distinction between short- and long-fibre flax or its proposals for hemp. It appears to me that they have not made any precise calculation to justify the different amounts for the premiums. Neither does there appear to be any precise calculation to justify the maximum guaranteed quantities, either at European level or on the different national levels. Consequently, these quantities are going to hinder development in the European Union with regard to short- and long-fibre flax and hemp.

In addition, it also seems to me to be problematic to apply these regulations during this, the 2000-2001 season, since we are already at a late stage.

I believe that Mrs Schierhuber’s proposal is a balanced one. It has been approved by a majority in the Committee on Agriculture and we should adopt it as a basic regulation.

  Adam (PSE). – Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur for her handling of what is a very complex matter where both producing and non-producing Member States have serious reservations regarding the Commission proposals.

In very broad terms, I welcome the Commission proposal to bring flax and hemp into the arable area payments scheme. A single area payment is in line with the view that growers should respond to market demands rather than be driven by CAP subsidies. However, I shall not repeat the many reservations about the proposals that colleagues have already mentioned.

We should note that flax and hemp are environmentally-friendly crops. Compared with mainstream crops such as oil seeds and cereals, they require low levels of chemical and fertiliser treatment. They also produce renewable raw materials that can displace synthetic fibres derived from petroleum and other mineral resources. We should welcome, therefore, the expansion of industrial crop activity and the opportunities provided for diversification.

However, I wish to raise the question of land eligibility, which appears to be a particular problem in the UK. Most of the flax and hemp grown in the UK is on land ineligible for arable area payments. The Commission proposals, as I understand them, threaten the UK growers and would leave UK processors with no domestic supply of raw material. It has been suggested that the land eligibility rules should be disregarded for flax and hemp so that any land could be used for those crops, but without an increase in the base area. This would allow expansion, should market conditions encourage growth, and allow new growers to enter the market. It would be helpful if the Commissioner could comment on this matter when he responds to the debate.

  Mulder (ELDR). – (NL) Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber. I have a feeling that this type of subject matter is right up her street. I can only say that I agree with the thrust of her report. I think it is indeed time that the Commission intervened in a support regulation for flax and hemp. Large-scale fraud, misuse and so forth can only give agricultural policy a bad name, and this must be avoided. That is why the Commission was right to intervene.

At this stage, however, there is another reason why the Commission would do well to devote special attention to this subject matter, as I am still of the opinion that it is necessary to develop agricultural crops other than the traditional crops grown at present. Flax and hemp are typical crops which could help us find new markets for new agricultural products. ‘Agrificatie’ (agrification) is the correct Dutch term for this and I will have a look in due course to see how this has been translated in the different languages.

Encouraging initiatives have been taken in this field and large investments have been made in various countries. In my opinion, the Commission should, more than anything, ensure that investments already made in factories and processing materials are used to the best effect. I am thus not persuaded that it is absolutely vital to tie certain quotas to certain countries. Instead, they should be tied to certain user capacities.

There is one aspect, however, not covered by the regulation, which works out quite well for Commissioner Fischler, namely that it will not cost him a penny. Could he not consider making the use of these products made from flax or hemp compulsory? It could be laid down in the law, in the interest of the environment, that dashboards for cars should be made of such and such products. Maybe this could culminate in excellent relations with the Environment Commissioner, because I have the impression that she has a habit of hampering agriculture in other areas of the environment. Perhaps this initiative could help us to turn the corner.

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Fischler, the Commission appears to have made a sound proposal, but in actual fact, this is not a sound proposal. It may possibly prevent fraud because there is no longer an incentive for farmers to pocket the higher flax premium instead of set-aside or cereals premiums. The only problem is that if you cut the flax premium to the level of the cereals premium and the set-aside premium, then no more flax or hemp will be cultivated in the EU and that will be that. But if you introduce processing aid, where, in your view, fraud cannot be committed – and incidentally it can actually, but let us assume for now that it cannot – then the result might be that the raw material is grown outside the EU and imported. If we want to ensure that flax is cultivated here, then we need to do precisely what we have proposed here, what the rapporteur has proposed, namely to go back to the level of the cereals premium. When proof is then furnished that processing has taken place the amount is doubled, and this proof will not require very many checks because it has to be provided by those who wish to have this premium.

I should like to make the following comment on the maximum quantities: the fact that the budget has expanded because of fraud – and here the Commission has not distinguished itself in terms of controls – is not something of which we can approve. Obviously, we have to push back the tide of fraud and the money which has been lost because of fraud needs, of course, to be traced. But the overall budget for this important, environmentally-friendly crop needs to be increased, and that is why the quotas which are now being laid down are inappropriate.

Mr Fischler, I am curious to hear whether you are going to accept the proposals made by the rapporteur – and I should like to thank her for her report. You know what procedure this is. If you say that you cannot accept them, we will react tomorrow and then we will have to negotiate this sound proposal from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development at another level.

  Thorning-Schmidt (PSE). – (DA) Mr President, the aid scheme for flax and hemp has turned into pure subsidy-hunting. It is almost criminal how grossly the scheme has been misused, and we must put a stop to this. For a number of years, aid for hemp has been much higher than that for other crops. Per-hectare aid for hemp is more than twice as high as that for cereals. This means that, even though there are almost no legal uses for hemp, the area used for hemp cultivation has quadrupled in the course of the last year. The desire to retain the high per-hectare aid for hemp is, in reality, a result of the very odd collaboration between, on the one hand, those who want to see cannabis legalised and, on the other hand, speculators in EU subsidies, for it is, in actual fact, impossible to see any difference between cannabinol-free hemp and the hemp which is used to produce hashish. The Commission proposes that aid for hemp should be reduced in three phases to the level of aid that has been set for cereals. I should ideally have liked to see aid reduced immediately to the aid level for cereals, but I can happily live with the Commission’s proposal. It gives farmers time to adapt. I cannot, however, live with the recommendation from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It cannot be in accordance with modern, forward-looking and enlargement-oriented agricultural policy to propose that the transitional arrangements should be further extended. That would be “far out” of place! Moreover, it is something I shall be voting against. Where flax is concerned, the Commission also proposes to limit the opportunity for subsidy-hunting and, here too, the Committee is in favour of improving the scheme. I take the opposite view, namely that the aid should be limited. It should be the market and consumers who decide what should be produced, not sky-high EU subsidies.

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my particular thanks go firstly to the rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber, for her comprehensive survey of the situation and her excellent report.

The debate on reforms in the sphere of flax and hemp grown for fibre has been going on now for almost five years, if you take 1996 and the proposals which the Commission made then as the starting point. In place of the reform proposed by the Commission at that time, however, the Council simply stepped up controls. This certainly increased administrative expenditure considerably, but largely failed to achieve the desired, and necessary, effect: subsidy-hunting continued and the area under cultivation increased from around 100 000 hectares to 240 000 hectares, with the result that budgetary expenditure on this sector was, virtually, more than doubled.

The proposal before you today has three main objectives. It is intended to put a stop to subsidy-hunting once and for all. The Commission wishes to foster rural development by supporting traditional cultivation and production methods, and it wants to help farmers over a limited period of time to find profitable new sales outlets and to increase their sales potential. You see we are not under any illusions! In the light of budgetary constraints – with which everyone is familiar – the sector has to be more market-oriented. An even more important point is that, following the Berlin decisions, no new money is envisaged for the promotion of new products. Such new products may be perfectly interesting for agriculture, but our message must be honest here: the overriding objective with innovations of this kind has to be profitability.

The Commission has carefully examined Parliament’s amendments. Many of them are acceptable to us, at least in essence; others are not acceptable in their current form but prompt further reflection. Then there are others which, I am afraid, we cannot accept.

I now turn to the first proposal on including flax and hemp grown for fibre in the arable crops regulation. I am prepared to accept Amendment No 2, which concerns the formulation of the objectives, and Amendment No 1, at least in spirit. The idea of doubling aid per hectare when proof is provided that the straw has been processed into fibres seems, at first sight, to be very tempting, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. However, in my opinion, it is doomed to failure. This is because, by introducing it, we would de facto be creating first and foremost fresh incentives for renewed subsidy-hunting, and ultimately we would again have to rely on controls which have hitherto already proved to be insufficiently effective.

Consequently, I do not agree with Amendments Nos 3, 9, 10 and 12 nor, for similar reasons, with Amendment No 38. In Amendment No 4, however, fears about the rules on land eligibility are expressed which were addressed in particular by Messrs Adam and Wyn. I agree with them that we need a sensible solution here, and that is why I can agree in principle to Amendment No 4. The same goes for Amendment No 37 which is along the same lines.

Amendments Nos 7, 8 and 15, regarding derogations from the provisions for arable crops in respect of surface area and set-aside, are acceptable to the extent that they are in line with the agreement on Agenda 2000, but only within this framework. In my opinion, they are actually no longer necessary because there is land all over the place within the surface area on which flax and hemp can be grown without limiting the amount of other crops that are cultivated. Nevertheless, problems could arise in some areas. We will try to find a solution here, so as to reduce the possible constraints which might arise.

I can accept Amendment No 6 on hemp. However, irregular plots cannot simply stop being subject to checks altogether, as is recommended, at least implicitly, in Amendments Nos 5 and 16 and I cannot therefore agree to these amendments.

There could be room for a certain amount of flexibility, however, where it is a question of achieving high control levels. That is why I can state my agreement with these amendments and with Amendment No 14 at least in this respect. It is because of the risks for the image of hemp that the Commission is proposing a ban on hemp and hempseed being used in food, despite the fact that the varieties which have to be used in Europe do not contain any psychotropic substances. This is a highly political issue which we can certainly discuss further. However, at the present time, I do not wish to agree to Amendments Nos 11, 13 and 32. But the actual objective is clear.

I now come to the second proposal, on the regulation on the common organisation of the market in flax and hemp grown for fibre. Processing aid has to be in reasonable proportion to production costs and take account of the market value of the products.

It is a fact that processing long-flax fibres entails higher costs. A distinction must therefore be drawn between processing aid for long-flax fibres and aid for short-flax fibres and hemp fibre.

Maximum permitted impurity levels also need to be fixed because the aid is intended to promote the production of high-quality fibre and not of the waste entailed in fibre production.

Our policy for the sector has to be unambiguous. We can only accept investment in products which are profitable under market conditions. This principle also applies here. That is why I cannot agree to Amendments Nos 18 and 34, even though they definitely contain further food for thought.

I do agree, however, with the ideas underlying Amendments Nos 23, 25 and 26, that is to bring the aid payable for long and short fibres more closely into line and to make the granting of aid dependent on the result of checks. Nevertheless, the limits given in the budget cannot be exceeded.

The second important subject is the national guaranteed quantities. In view of the well-known difficulties with checking harvest results, these are absolutely indispensable. The Commission proposal mitigates the risk of abuse at the processing stage without quotas having to be set for the individual processing plants, and thus without the disadvantages which quotas of this kind would have on an expanding market.

A maximum guaranteed quantity for the whole Community would not be a solution. Experience shows that this only leads to disputes between Member States and makes it more difficult to find a real solution.

Dividing the maximum guaranteed quantity between the Member States annually, on the basis of processing capacity – which cannot be verified – is not really a practicable alternative. That is why I cannot accept Amendments Nos 20, 21, 27 to 30 and 35. But the idea of introducing a kind of newcomer quota and dividing this each year between those Member States where there is only very little flax and hemp production at the present time, or none at all, is, I believe, definitely worth exploring.

I can accept Amendments Nos 24 and 33 for those instances when the farmer and the primary processor are one and the same person. As far as the import of hemp and hempseed is concerned, I agree that we need a practicable solution. However, I cannot agree to Amendments Nos 22 and 31 in their current form because they implicitly say that no further controls need to be carried out.

Turning, in conclusion, to the timetable, I am also prepared to accept Amendments Nos 17 and 36, in accordance with which the new rules would only enter into force on 1 July 2001. But this would mean that the aid per hectare for the next marketing year would have to be set this year in accordance with the system currently in force. In this case, I would be bound by the figures in the 2001 budget.

A reform of this sector is absolutely essential! I think that you agree with me on this. We need to make the fibre flax and hemp sector more market-oriented so that it is able to make an effective, indisputable and useful contribution to the economy and is no longer the target of public criticism.

Under these circumstances, I would have thought that you would have attached great importance to adopting the resolution this week, so that the Council can also take a decision as soon as possible. In this way we can avoid the market disruption which would ensue in the 2000/2001 financial year if the level of the aid was not settled by 1 August.

For all that – as I have told you – I can accept 13 of the amendments and, as regards many of the others as well, I have specifically emphasised that, although I cannot accept them as they stand at the moment, some of them definitely provide further food for thought and material for debates which I will initiate in the Council.

However, because the market really will be severely disrupted if we do not have a scheme in place in time, we would either have to adopt temporary preventive measures – which would have to take account of the initial budget estimates for 2001 – or we will have a harvest where the producers will not know what payments they can expect to receive. We really should not allow this kind of situation to develop. It would be simply unthinkable to have to explain to the producers and also the processors why they should have to suffer because we cannot manage to decide on a proposal which, after all, has already been on the table in this House for eight months.

  Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, allow me to ask the Commissioner one more question. Commissioner, you mentioned the controls which will need to be carried out in connection with the processing premium, and these must indeed take place. Now if you combine our proposal to double the aid per hectare when proof is furnished with the proof for the processing aid, which also has to be provided, and if you join these two things together – of course this is not elaborated upon in the report – then the controls which need to be carried out for both kinds of premium are guaranteed and farmers do not lose out. If you implement your scheme, as proposed, you will be depriving European flax and hemp growers of land and that has nothing to do with controls.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, with your permission I should like to ask the Commissioner a supplementary question. I fully agree with you that we must not let it reach such a point that the poor farmers and processors do not know what lies in store for them or what their prospects are for the future. That is why I should like to ask you this specific question, Commissioner: can you envisage – and I am referring here to Amendments Nos 27 and 28 and to my previous comments – that the Commission might, after all, consider rethinking its proposal on quotas and restructuring it?

  Fischler, Commission. – (DE) Perhaps I will begin with the second question, which was asked by the rapporteur. If I have correctly understood what this is about, you are referring first and foremost to the so-called newcomer quotas. In this regard, I have said that we are prepared to accept a quota of this kind. I now turn to the first question, which was asked by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. I am sorry, but what you are proposing is still based on an assumption, namely that this check is carried out. It is simply the case that the current system is not working and that is why I believe we have no choice but to change it. And so I do not want us to turn the system completely on its head. If we go back partly to the old system again then I do not see how we can make it work and why it should work any better than it has in the past.

  President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner Fischler.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.