Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 3 July 2012 - Strasbourg

15. Common rules for direct support schemes for farmers - Support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development - Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products - Financing of the common agricultural policy - Organic production and labelling of organic products - System of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:

1. A7-0158/2011 by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (COM(2010)0539 - C7-0294/2010 - 2010/0267(COD)).

2. A7-0161/2011 by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2010)0537 - C7-0295/2010 - 2010/0266(COD)).

3. A7-0322/2011 by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (COM(2010)0799 - C7-0008/2011 - 2010/0385(COD)).

4. A7-0209/2011 by Giovanni La Via, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 165/1994 and Council Regulation (EC) No 78/2008 (COM(2010)0745 - C7-0429/2010 - 2010/0365(COD)).

5. A7-0215/2011 by Martin Häusling, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products (COM(2010)0759 - C7-0001/2011 - 2010/0364(COD)).

6. A7-0204/2011 by Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (COM(2010)0761 - C7-0002/2011 - 2010/0366(COD)).

  Paolo De Castro, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Treaty of Lisbon abolishes the old comitology system, replacing it with a two-tier structure, consisting of delegated acts which include Parliament’s and the Council’s right of veto, and implementing acts which completely exclude Parliament from each step in the approval process. The existing body of legislation therefore had to be aligned to the new legal reality. We started this exercise with the three most important regulations all of which, Mr President, I shall deal with together, and which make up the heart of the agricultural policy: the regulations on direct payments, on rural development and on the common organisation of the markets.

The Commission’s proposals immediately appeared to be quite balanced and there were very few changes made by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI). In particular, as regards direct payments, delegated acts must be used in cases where the basic act is amended, and in cases where rights are conferred to farmers or reversely where negative consequences may be incurred. In addition, given the spirit of the treaty on the common agricultural policy (CAP) budget, we felt that the financial discipline process could no longer be applied without the participation of Parliament. Indeed, maintaining Article 11 unchanged, with the Council acting on a proposal from the Commission, would constitute an unacceptable continuation of the Council’s exclusive right to implement measures directly.

As regards rural development, we believe that the Commission has done an accurate repartition between more general provisions establishing additional elements, and which therefore require delegated acts, and more technical elements that are very much connected with the discretion that Member States enjoy in implementing this measure, and which therefore require implementing acts.

By contrast, the proposed alignment with the regulation on the common organisation of the markets has proved to be more problematic, especially on issues connected with Article 43(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The article in question provides that the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations. This is an exception to paragraph 2 of the same article, which requires the ordinary legislative procedure (OLP) to be used for the common agricultural policy. As an exception, Article 43(3) needs to be interpreted restrictively, that is, only when there are provisions that do not form part of the fundamental policy decisions, which must be taken pursuant to Article 43(2) of the Treaty.

We therefore believe that the Commission proposal does not interpret Article 43(3) in a sufficiently restrictive way. The task of drawing up conditions and criteria for fixing aid amounts, export refunds and minimum export prices should remain with the legislator, which means Parliament and the Council, leaving to the Commission the fixing of amounts through implementing acts.

Once these three recommendations had been approved by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, we began to negotiate with the Council and the Commission so that we could reach an agreement at first reading. The urgency was dictated by the imminent reform of the common agricultural policy, which we would not have wished to be encumbered by complex negotiations on institutional issues. Despite our willingness to negotiate, to concede something with respect to our initial position, and despite the outstanding activism first on the part of the Polish Presidency and then from the Danish Presidency, we were unable to find a compromise solution, hence the need for the committee to act efficiently and in a timely manner, on the one hand, and the new and stronger powers conferred on Parliament by the Treaty of Lisbon, on the other.

The main obstacles we encountered were from the Council, which wishes to systematically and horizontally eliminate delegated acts, even where these are legally required, in order to replace them with implementing acts which completely exclude Parliament. Such a position is unacceptable to us, because it means surrendering the new prerogatives that the Treaty has assigned to us, thereby severely limiting the powers of Parliament. Another factor that made negotiations more difficult was the attitude of the Commission which, during the negotiations, moved from a position close to that of Parliament to siding with the Council’s, leaving us alone in the battle to defend the most authentic interpretation of the Treaty.

We are now faced with the difficult negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy; we therefore decided to ask plenary to confirm the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s vote on alignment, so as to strengthen our position when we negotiate future agricultural policy. Indeed, only by defending the prerogatives of Parliament can we be sure to respect the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon and, at the same time, ensure that in future, the CAP is more democratic and closer to citizens.

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the alignment of the so-called horizontal regulation to the new provisions of the Treaty is based on a classification into delegated powers and implementing powers regarding the provisions adopted by the Commission pursuant to that regulation. After carefully scrutinising the Commission proposal, based on the criteria defined for the two types of act, respectively Articles 290 and 291, we identified areas where the conditions for delegated acts were met, and then examined the proposal in terms of the conditions for implementing acts.

In the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), we tabled a few amendments on the conditions of the delegation, its period, the timeframes for objecting to a delegated act, the extension of that period, committee procedures, in accordance with the common understanding on practical arrangements, and the use of delegated acts, adopted by the Conference of Presidents on 3 March 2011, and Regulation No 182/2011 of Parliament and the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers.

In this area, I recall one of the points of disagreement with the Council was the wish to use implementing acts in situations where, under the Treaty, these would be the most logical and appropriate tool. I believe that this Parliament, for its part, cannot surrender control of such important and sensitive issues such as transparency, Article 40A, or penalties for beneficiaries.

We have to admit that these alignment reports are a litmus test for a new working method that needs to be established between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, but which must be as effective as possible, according to a complex schema of competences that I hope will always and, in any case, converge towards the implementation of effective means for the development of European agriculture. In procedural terms, the majority required within the Council to block an implementing act is exactly the same as for a delegated act. The Council’s resistance to using delegated acts is therefore not justified and, if maintained, would be an unnecessary obstacle to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP).

I must also say that we have proposed some items, which we believe are an improvement but, just like decommitment at national level, they failed to meet with the approval of the Commission and the Council, and will therefore again be the subject of negotiation and confrontation regarding horizontal regulation of CAP reform. The lack of agreement regarding the alignment of horizontal regulation led us to call on plenary to vote so that, as the Chair of AGRI, Mr De Castro, said, we may have greater bargaining power and take a firm stand from Parliament on this issue.

This report, as well as others addressed so far, have, in any case, been an important moment for this Parliament, which, for the first time, through codecision, is actively involved in defining the new agricultural policy. It was not just a simple process of displacement, as claimed by many, but a serious awareness among my colleagues on the AGRI Committee of how well the CAP instruments have operated so far, so these instruments have to be brought up to date for the new reform through appropriate tools and constructive corrections.

I wanted to close with a reference: we have seen through a long series of trialogues the difficulty of finding an agreement on alignment. It was a missed opportunity which could cause us to waste time during the next approval process for common agricultural policy reform.

  Martin Häusling, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, as in the case of the other two areas just referred to, we have also had to go into second reading on the subject of organic farming. This is regrettable, but we have held two trialogues and, in substantive terms, we have not made much progress. Although the atmosphere was pleasant and we were able to agree on many points, sadly, we could not reach agreement on the key issues.

To give you some of the history: on 1 June last year, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted with a large majority to accept the report for amendment. After this, we began the negotiations, held preliminary talks with the Polish Presidency and then started discussions with the Danish Presidency. We made no progress on two points, which concerned the criteria for certain products and substances. We could not come to an agreement in these areas.

We did not rely solely on our own opinion. We also obtained the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which clearly stated that these two articles were legal acts that came under the heading of delegated acts. This relates to Article 290, which regulates what this concerns and which clearly involves applying delegated acts. This is not a question of how something is regulated. Instead, a mandatory regulation is being introduced which is binding in the same manner across the entire European Union.

We in Parliament understand that the Council naturally wants to be involved. We have repeatedly emphasised in the negotiations that we understand this and have submitted compromise proposals which went in the right direction, in other words, we have said that experts on a national level should be included. We have proposed incorporating the substances into the basic acts and we believe that this will work, because there have only been a total of two amendments in four years. Therefore, this is very much a practical solution.

On the subject of the entire procedure, I would like to say, and I endorse Mr De Castro’s criticism in this respect, that the Commission changed its approach to the delegated acts during the trialogue meetings and then spoke out in favour of implementing acts. We have not been able to understand this and it has led to many differences of opinion. Then a vague offer was made that we would simply be kept informed when amendments were introduced. From our perspective, just providing us with information cannot be conclusive. We have a right to delegated acts and we will reinforce this right during first reading. We hope that the Commission makes practical proposals which will allow us to enter into further negotiations with the Cypriot Presidency.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, the report for which I am responsible, which is being discussed today, concerning Member State scrutiny of operations which are part of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, reflects the belief of the Committee on Agriculture regarding aligning this document with the related delegated acts and implementing acts introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Procedures were introduced in relation to the implementing acts under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, which lays down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for Member State scrutiny of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. Delegated acts take place in accordance with the development of informal negotiations between the three institutions. It is therefore essential that Parliament confirm this position through the vote which will take place tomorrow, which I hope will be passed by the greatest possible majority, so as to reaffirm Parliament’s position regarding its role as colegislator.

I would therefore call on the Commission and the Council to adopt a narrow interpretation of the Treaty of Lisbon, so as to enable progress with our work, in particular, as regards reforming the common agricultural policy. There is no time to waste. The Treaty of Lisbon has transformed the old comitology procedure, introducing a clear distinction between administrative acts, or implementing acts, as well as conferring on Parliament the right of veto of the latter, on an equal footing with the Council; that is, the right to repeal the delegation of an act to the Commission.

There is still an institutionalised procedure, according to which the Commission continues to be assisted by committees specialising in implementing acts, and it is inevitable that the Member States will consult experts for drawing up delegated acts. It is definitely necessary to find a balance between that which could be categorised as a basic act, as a delegated act, or as an implementing act, as long as the limits between different provisions leave a margin for interpretation. It is so as to achieve this balance that I would reiterate my call for a strict interpretation of the Treaty in which Parliament’s new powers are enshrined.

I am not saying that Parliament should replace the EU’s executive, the Commission, or much less the governments of the Member States. I would simply demand for Parliament the power to scrutinise the new comitology, commensurate with its new role as colegislator, without promising effective decision making.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, I am pleased that I once again have the opportunity to thank Parliament and its Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) and all of the rapporteurs for the considerable work that has already been accomplished. These efforts have enabled us to make progress on alignment issues, which we would all like to see resolved.

As we know, this alignment of agricultural legislation with the Treaty of Lisbon is primarily a very technical issue, as we have also seen from what the rapporteurs have presented, and it is legally quite complex, but it is also work that carries a great deal of political sensitivity and importance, particularly for Parliament, but also for all of the institutions involved in the decision and the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP).

I am fully aware of the political importance for Parliament of this discussion on alignment.

As Mr De Castro mentioned, the discussions began under the Hungarian Presidency and have continued for almost a year. We came very close to reaching an agreement at one time but, in the end, we found ourselves at an impasse after the last trialogue on 20 December 2011 under the Polish Presidency.

The Danish Presidency then decided to include the ‘alignment’ part of the four main regulations in the debate on CAP reform and to pursue negotiations on other alignment issues separately.

I would like to be clear. I have said this several times before the AGRI Committee, but I would like to say it again: I have always been careful to defend Parliament’s prerogatives, as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, in all of the alignment packages in order to achieve a balanced distribution of power between the Council and Parliament.

For every grey area, and every time that it was legally possible, I would like to point out that I have chosen an approach that allows the two institutions to play their part. By favouring delegated acts and by strictly adhering to Article 43(3) of the Treaty of Lisbon, which Mr De Castro mentioned, I have tried to move in the same direction as Parliament. That is why, for example, I favoured a role for both the Council and Parliament in financial discipline in the regulation on direct support. That is also why, when defining the obligations to maintain permanent pasture, I also favoured delegated acts. There are many examples, including in the very sensitive area of sanctions, and I would ask you to examine these in detail: you will see that the Commission has made efforts to move in the same direction as Parliament.

It is not surprising that, from this starting point, which ensures a greater role for Parliament, the Council has not always agreed and, of course, it has failed to reach compromises. However, generally speaking, from this starting point, which I have just defined, the overall compromise package in each alignment operation has strengthened Parliament’s prerogatives.

In any case, we must ensure that this alignment does not have an impact on the discussions on the content of the CAP reform, which are very important for all of us. I consider this vote a sign that Parliament is going in the right direction.

More specifically, with regard to the regulation on organic farming, which Mr Häusling mentioned, we have still not reached an agreement on the most sensitive point, that is, the procedure for the authorisation of the withdrawal of substances which may be used in this kind of agriculture.

I understand very well that you believe that the authorisation, or lack thereof, of certain substances or types of substances has political significance, particularly within the framework of organic farming. Therefore, you cannot accept being excluded from the decision-making process on these substances. I understand that very well and, what is more, I support this approach.

I think, however, that your hesitation is closely linked to the regulation on organic farming which is currently being drafted. The criteria surrounding the authorisation of substances can be improved and adapted. I can understand that many of you think that it would be desirable to update them and to make them more specific as often as possible.

That is precisely what we are proposing to do. The Commission has just adopted a report on the experience gained in the implementation of the ‘organic farming’ regulation since 2009, since it has been in force. This report is the first step in a debate on improving the current legal framework for organic farming. We have just launched an assessment, an impact assessment, which will, in particular, deal with updating the criteria for the authorisation of substances used in organic farming. This analysis will be followed by legislative proposals aimed at improving the basic regulation. Parliament will be fully involved in this process, which will also encompass criteria for the authorisation of substances, which will be included in the basic act once the regulation that we are going to propose has been improved. Parliament will be involved because this amendment to the regulation will take place via the ordinary legislative procedure.

Once we have debated the content and once we have reached an agreement on criteria in particular, I think that the questions of procedure that we are concerned about today will come up again less acutely, because this adaptation of the basic legislative framework will be an opportunity to set more precise authorisation criteria with you. I hope that your concerns will then be appeased.

In summary, I welcome your proposal to put the alignment issues to the vote in plenary tomorrow. This will allow us to determine Parliament’s position. It will then be possible to resume the interinstitutional discussions on a clearer basis. I hope that we will quickly reach an agreement and that we will dispel all of your concerns.

I will say it again: I will be directly and fully involved in this process of final discussions. Every time we have the opportunity to take a decision that will strengthen the role of Parliament, while legally respecting what is laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon and the regulation under consideration, I will ensure that Parliament is able to fully assume its role as colegislator and oversee the implementation of these legislative acts.

  Iosif Matula, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (RO) Mr President, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, with regard to support for rural development by the EAFRD, I congratulate all the rapporteurs for the excellent documents presented during this joint debate. Europe’s rural sector is facing numerous challenges: major differences between regions, rural areas in demographic decline, low per capita incomes, a less developed services sector and restricted access to broadband Internet. The rural development policy’s objectives in addressing these challenges are to increase the agricultural and forestry sector’s competitiveness, develop rural areas and the environment, and encourage the rural economy to diversify.

Bearing in mind these priorities, based on the powers which the REGI Committee has, as part of this report, I support:

1. maintaining a balance between environmental protection and the needs in terms of local development;

2. getting national, regional and local representatives involved in national rural networks;

3. encouraging the creation of online e-counselling platforms for farmers using broadband and, last but not least:

4. ensuring the compatibility of EAFRD aid with the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion.

  Hans-Peter Mayer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has had comprehensive powers of codecision with regard to agricultural legislation. This fact gives Parliament new rights which we must and will exercise. To summarise, the results of this are as follows:

Firstly, we will ensure that as many areas as possible are regulated by basic acts and that the provisions are clear, in order to give farmers the greatest possible security to plan ahead.

Secondly, we will make sure that there is flexibility in regulatory cases by using delegated acts to avoid overburdening the basic acts.

Thirdly, in the case of justified exceptions, we will allow technical details to be amended using implementing acts.

Fourthly and most importantly, this means that we will fight to exercise our rights and duties as a democratic body and colegislator. I am calling on the Council to give up its inflexible approach and to accept delegated acts in regulations and amendments. This is not about political decision making, but about the competence of Parliament.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak , on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, this debate is very important, as are the decisions that we are taking. We are discussing purely technical solutions following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. We are, however, on the eve of a reform of the common agricultural policy and our decisions regarding the measures to be contained in delegated acts and those to be contained in implementing acts will determine how we implement the common agricultural policy in the future. They will also determine whether the focus of our discussions will be technicalities or substantive issues. The European Parliament would, however, favour discussion on specific measures.

During our previous debate today, we demonstrated that we are on the side of farmers, that we fight for their interests, for direct payments and for the common agricultural policy. We are on your side, Commissioner. The significant role played by the European Parliament serves not only to defend the Treaty of Lisbon, but also, first and foremost, to defend the interest of farmers.

It should also be noted that it is not possible to make a clear-cut distinction between delegated acts and implementing acts. The Commissioner has pointed out that certain measures have already been added to delegated acts. For my part, I would like to emphasise that this is not a political decision but a strictly legal one. Such a decision can always be contested before the Court of Justice. This, in turn, would mean that should measures be used that infringe the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon, then the entire legislative package would be suspended and would cease to function. In such a case, farmers would not be able to benefit from the common agricultural policy or from numerous measures.

I therefore appeal for a return to the original measures proposed by the European Commission, which were well prepared and which adhered to the letter of the law. Subsequently, as a result of the Council’s intervention, you have backed away from a number of measures, which is regrettable.

  George Lyon, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, along with my colleague, Paolo De Castro, and others, I have had the misfortune to have been involved in the negotiations with the Council and the Commission on the horizontal file for over 18 months and under three different presidencies of the Council, and to date, we have little progress to show for all the effort that we have put in.

At the heart of the problem is the Council’s view that every decision on secondary legislation should be made through implementing acts rather than delegated acts. I must remind the Council, although there is no one representing them here tonight to hear this debate, that implementing acts should be used solely for the purpose of the uniform application of non-essential elements of policies across the EU. However, the Council’s position seems to be that Parliament should have no say whatever over what the Commission does in secondary legislation. The Council’s position seems to be that we have no say; they have no recognition that Lisbon has changed the game, that power must now be shared, and that it is not business as usual.

The Commission proudly claims that it is the guarantors of the Treaties, yet time after time in the negotiations on alignment, the Commission ends up siding with the Council and denying Parliament its rights under codecision. The Commission should be sticking up for the rights of Parliament and defending the correct interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty provisions.

Commissioner, tonight I hear what you say about being sympathetic to our cause, but that is not borne out by our experience in the negotiations so far. Tonight, I think it is crystal clear from this debate that this Parliament will fight tooth and nail during the CAP negotiations to protect our powers under Lisbon, even if that means holding the final agreement on CAP reform to ransom until the Council and the Commission agree to a sensible compromise on this key issue of recognising this Parliament’s role in colegislation.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, while the issue of alignment of the Lisbon Treaty is perhaps not the most riveting issue going through the committee at the moment, especially considering our work on the CAP reform, it is nonetheless very important. I commend the work of the rapporteurs who have worked on these dossiers. It is quite clearly extremely complex and a subject with legal difficulties. I think we recognise that.

Although we have not been able to reach agreement, the issue must be dealt with in the CAP reform. The vote tomorrow will provide a clear position for the Parliament side. We have to recognise that there is clearly a growing void between the Commission and Parliament. Granting powers to the European Parliament is one of the aspects of the Lisbon Treaty which I totally support.

In terms of delegated acts, I am in favour of Parliament being given more control and influence because this takes that control into the hands of Parliament and elected representatives. However, I urge Parliament to use these powers, and I have no doubt it will. Especially under the leadership of the current chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, we would use those powers wisely and at least it would be more democratic.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the term ‘implementing act’ is enough to send the layman fast asleep. If I shouted out ‘Commission power grab’, he might wake up. The Lisbon Treaty was another remorseless shift in the removal of democracy; it is little surprise to me that the Commission is pushing things to the limit and it is clear why the EU was so desperate to avoid referendums on this subject.

Here tonight, we are completing the tidying-up exercise of taking a handful of issues that were still being discussed under the old pre-Lisbon regime. One of these is organic farming. This must be one of the most pampered industries in the entire world. There are generous grants to convert into it; organic farmers have exclusive access to generously paying environmental schemes; and they are, I understand, exempt from the inconvenience of the greening measures that other farmers must endure. Despite this, the end product is still more expensive to the consumer.

Today is 3 July, and a feed compounder in Britain today is having to pay GBP 200 to have a tonne of wheat delivered to his mill. This fact alone should concentrate the minds of political leaders into removing obstructions for real farmers, rather than playing around with implementing acts and organic farming.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) The Treaty of Lisbon increases the competences of the European Parliament and this requires specific adjustments. Inter alia, it involves identifying, in the current regulations, the implementing and delegating powers granted to the Commission under Article 290 and Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The adjustment to the Treaty of Lisbon is certainly not a technical procedure. In actual fact, it is a struggle for power between the three institutions. The discussion about the application of Article 43(3) of the Treaty or the division of acts into implementing acts and delegating acts are examples of this struggle. I believe that all important issues concerning the common agricultural policy should be contained in the basic act, in order for the legislators, namely Parliament and the Council, to have a direct influence on the shaping of the provisions. In fact, in order to view the full picture of CAP reform, it is necessary to be acquainted with the nature of the delegated acts and implementing acts to be presented by the Commission. The devil is quite often in the detail. I therefore appeal to the European Commission to present the outline of these acts as soon as possible.

Finally, I would like to say that Members should be better informed and should be included in the negotiation process with the Council and the Commission. Currently, it is rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs who make all decisions during a trialogue. We need greater transparency. The trialogue should be open to interested Members serving on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, though they would not, of course, have voting rights.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before talking about the content, we must talk about the technical side of things and adapt the decision-making tool since, as others have said before me, particularly Mr De Castro, Mr Lyon and Mr Capoulas Santos, the Council has a tendency to avoid delegated acts, which limits Parliament’s power and, consequently, is at odds with the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Following the vote within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), Parliament must reaffirm the power conferred on us by the Treaty, which is only fair when we are talking about the only integrated policy of the European Union – which has been in place for 50 years, as this year is its anniversary – which still accounts today for close to 40% of the EU budget.

By granting more powers to Parliament, the Treaty of Lisbon restores balance in favour of democracy. We can no longer allow the ‘obstruction’ of the Council – for we should indeed call it an obstruction – which seems to be curled up with its privileges from the ‘old system’ from before the Treaty of Lisbon. This cannot go on any longer and I am pleased with the position that we will take in this Parliament, but also with the position that you have taken, Commissioner, for I think that, politically, in this battle, you must clearly be on our side as regards the pure and simple application of the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with my colleague’s report on rural development where it introduces some appreciable elements of simplification such as the reduction in the number of annual progress and summary reports. Under the heading of rural development is the change to the rules on using advisory services, which should help to reduce the administrative burden for Member States.

I also agree with Mr De Castro on the need not to exclude support for producer associations in the fruit and vegetable sector, as part of measures to support the establishment and administration of producer associations. I also consider it essential, as the rapporteur stated, that Member States which have opted for regional programmes be allowed calculation of the automatic decommitment of financial resources at Member State level.

I also agree with the position of Mr Capoulas Santos in his report on the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, and I thank the other Members that I have not mentioned for their work.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, as shadow rapporteur for the regulation on organic production and labelling of organic products, I would congratulate Mr Häusling on the balanced way in which he led the trialogue on its necessary alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon, in particular, regarding implementing acts or delegated acts, the very issue which delayed reaching a consensus.

The Council remains unwavering with regard to Articles 16 and 21, claiming that authorisation on specific substances constitutes an implementing act, and not a delegated act, as Parliament legitimately claims, based on Article 290(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Commission began by supporting Parliament’s claim, but then adopted the position of the Council. To break the deadlock, Parliament proposed that a list of substances be inserted in the annex to the basic act, which was also rejected. The bulk of Parliament’s other proposals were consensual.

In this context, and because the dispute that occurred in this trialogue is common to other reports by Parliament, it is important to progress to voting for the plenary at first reading, even without consensus, in order to demonstrate our determination in this matter and gain support and political strength for today and for the future. Second, it is important to promote a solution to this recurring problem at the highest level of Parliament, as it is a problem for various Parliament committees and burdensome for the public.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, it is highly regrettable that, despite the numerous trialogue negotiations resulting, in particular, from the outstanding horizontal questions, it was not possible for us to come to an agreement with the Council. These negotiations have now been going on for years and everyone has put a lot of time and effort into them. The fact that they have failed ultimately means that they have not achieved their purpose. This was primarily about bringing the technical area involving a formal amendment under the Treaty of Lisbon to a conclusion before the actual negotiations on the future of the common agricultural policy.

However, I would like to make one thing clear to the Council. Parliament has clearly demonstrated its readiness to compromise during the many negotiations. However, I have not seen the same readiness on the part of the Council, in so far as it was possible to negotiate at all, because there was often no negotiating mandate from the Council. I definitely do not want to make any conjectures, but if anyone believes that this central area in the negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy has been neglected by Parliament, then they are deceiving themselves. We will confirm the position of the committee tomorrow in plenary and we will start the negotiations on the common agricultural policy with a clear mandate.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the opportunity to debate these four reports tonight because they highlight the important role of the European Parliament in the forthcoming negotiations on CAP reform. It will act and impact on the lives of many European citizens and, as such, it is important – imperative even – that the citizens’ representatives can speak and implement changes on their behalf.

The Lisbon Treaty envisioned a scenario where a greater role would be given to this institution. However, the Council and the Commission are constantly seeking to circumvent this role, something which is evidenced in the phenomenon of delegated acts turning into implementing acts, and we really have to fight this encroachment on our role.

I, like many other MEPs, have held public meetings around my constituency and sought the opinion of stakeholders on the CAP post-2013 and I have met many people who have lots of worries about it. But European citizens expect their opinions to be reflected in the legislation which comes from the European institutions and, as such, the role of Parliament is paramount.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, honourable Members, I have listened carefully to your various comments. I would like to highlight what I said in my introduction and, in particular, respond to Mr Lyon.

The Commission will support Parliament every time it is legally possible to do so, in accordance with Articles 290 and 291. Article 290 states that delegated acts are applied to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act. Article 291, as you have said, gives the Commission the unique opportunity to ensure the uniform application of basic acts.

This is the spirit in which we are working and it is the same spirit that I hope we will work in to find definitive formulas and an agreement. Mr Nicholson, who is no longer here, spoke about the growing tensions between Parliament and the Commission. In any case, I can assure you that I will not fuel these tensions. I think that it is in everyone’s interests – those of both farmers and European consumers and citizens, as Mr Olejniczak said – to reach an agreement.

With regard to the regulations on organic farming, which Ms Patrão Neves mentioned, I am ready to find a solution which includes Parliament in the procedure concerning the decision on substances. However, we must also evaluate producers’ interest in organic farming. How can we do this without overcomplicating and prolonging the decision-making process for a substance? For this reason, I am proposing a compromise of analysing, within the framework of the adaptation of the basic regulation on organic farming, whether we should now provide more specifically for criteria on the basis of which we could choose whether or not to approve the introduction of a substance. Once these criteria are more precise, following ordinary legislative procedure, and only on the basis of these criteria, the Commission could present implementing acts to limit its role simply to the application of criteria which will already be integrated into the basic act.

There is also the other possibility that you mentioned of attaching the list of substances as an annex to the basic act, but that means applying ordinary legislative procedure for each substance, which risks considerably delaying the adoption process.

If we manage to agree on a package of criteria in the basic act for the adoption of these substances, I hope that we will succeed in ensuring that Parliament has its place in this procedure. I propose working on these options in order to find a compromise and I hope that we will find one fairly quickly after tomorrow’s vote.

  Paolo De Castro, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take advantage of this minute just to thank my colleagues for their comments and also to thank the Commissioner. We take note of the support that the Commissioner has shown today, in the hope that the difficulties of reaching an agreement with the Council on implementing acts do not turn into difficulties of reaching an agreement on common agricultural policy reform. For this reason, I appeal to the Commissioner: we are in the Lisbon era, the Council needs to understand that Parliament has new prerogatives, which it is not prepared to surrender. In tomorrow’s vote, we will be following the Commission’s approach, so we hope that the Council will, in the end, join with us on these positions.

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that this has been a useful debate as various Members have had their say regarding their positions on the alignment of the different regulations to the Treaty of Lisbon, thereby enabling us to confirm in the presence of the Commissioner how much Parliament cares about maintaining its role and prerogatives.

It is therefore clear that in this context, irrespective of tomorrow’s vote – which basically does not diverge significantly from the positions initially raised by the Commission – it is just another step in the direction and along the path we need to travel, not only in order to implement into EU rules all the powers entrusted by the Lisbon Treaty, but also and especially in the direction of the new common agricultural policy.

Commissioner, you well know how many times we have met under different presidencies. You well know how this path, when we got stuck on horizontal issues which ought to have included all the regulations and we had difficulty moving forward, cost us greatly in terms of effort, commitment and time.

We now need to set off down this path again. Tomorrow is just an intermediate step in which Parliament, through its vote, wishes once again to clearly express its position and its desire not to surrender its prerogatives.

On the other hand, we must begin to work to ensure that it is not alignment with the Lisbon Treaty, of all the regulations within the common agricultural policy, that prevents approval of the policy itself. We will agree on and debate the contents of the agricultural policy, this Parliament will do its part, but as regards alignment with the Lisbon Treaty, I think we can start work again immediately so as to speed things up.

  Martin Häusling, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, I would like to thank you once again for explaining to us that you are prepared to compromise. I want to make it clear yet again that this is not a case of Parliament harping on about principles. It is about clear regulations for the future which everyone will have to live with, including the Commission, the Council and Parliament. It is no use reaching compromises that do not last longer than a day. We must make sure that the legal framework for years to come is clearly defined.

What is sometimes lacking is trust in the institutions and, perhaps, trust in Parliament on the part of the Council. It was repeatedly said in the negotiations, and you have just said the same thing indirectly, that it could delay the individual legislative procedures. It may be the case that there are occasional delays. However, on the other hand, Parliament’s expertise should not be excluded. For example, we have proposed incorporating the substances into the basic acts in the knowledge that there have only been two amendments in four years, which could have been rubber-stamped by Parliament using a rapid procedure. The concern that Parliament is likely to delay or block the process is unjustified.

We must send out a clear signal in first reading that we insist on our rights. This signal must also go out to the Council. We must make it clear that we are not open to persuasion, we will not reach uneasy compromises, and we cannot ultimately allow the lawyers to decide by themselves what we will do. There must be a fair political dialogue involving all the institutions. I would like to thank you specifically for once again offering us a compromise. We will be happy to look into it again. If we can move close enough together on this issue that only a small step is needed, I believe that we will be able to amend this regulation so that everyone agrees with it.

For us, it is also about rapidly introducing procedures at this point which accommodate everyone and ensuring that no one can claim that Parliament is blocking progress. We do not want that under any circumstances. However, we must look after our own interests in this context and we will not make a deal that ultimately does not suit us. I would like to make it clear once again that until now, all the compromises have been made by Parliament while the Council has seldom proposed a single one.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, rapporteur. – (PT) Mr President, after all that has been said, I do not have much to add. I will say, however, that the set of speeches we have just heard confirms, without doubt, Parliament’s cohesive position in this regard and makes clear the urgent need for us to reach an agreement quickly. I am sure that the Commission is as committed as we are to reaching this goal and I sincerely hope that this will be possible in the shortest timeframe possible.

  President. – The debate, which focused on crucial aspects of interinstitutional cooperation, is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday, 4 July 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Direct payments are one of the most important support mechanisms implemented as part of the common agricultural policy, which itself takes up a significant portion of the EU budget. We should, therefore, ensure that these funds are used appropriately. The aim of modulation is to ensure that the agricultural sector is subsidised in a more effective manner. By reducing direct payments, more funds will be allocated to the support provided under the second pillar, making it possible to increase the number of rural development programmes. I support the adjustment to a lower modulation rate in 10 new Member States, as it will lead to a gradual alignment of these payments, which is key to ensuring equal conditions of competition in the EU’s agricultural market.

Direct payments help farmers, but they also benefit consumers. Thanks to direct payments, food prices are not only more stable, they are now, most importantly, lower. Payments should be made to farmers and not to landowners, since that is the way to ensure that best use is made of these payments. It is essential to determine the level of the crisis reserve for the years 2014-2020, intended to protect the food sector. In the coming years, financial discipline will be crucial, but it should also be stressed that protection of the food sector is a priority for the Union’s policy. I therefore believe that the planned reserve should at least be maintained at its current level.