11 Guide prices for fishery products
| (28071)
15596/06
COM(06) 703
| Draft Council Regulation fixing for the 2007 fishing year the guide prices and Community producer prices for certain fishery products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000
|
| Legal base | Articles 18(3) and 26(1) EC; QMV
|
| Document originated | 20 November 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 24 November 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 1 December 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | 20-21 December 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
11.1 Council Regulation (EC) No. 104/2000[25]
provides for the annual fixing of guide prices for a range of
fish and fish products, and for the fixing of an annual Community
producer price for tuna intended for canning. Guide prices act
as the base from which Community withdrawal and reference prices
are calculated, which in turn set a market floor for fishermen
who are members of a recognised Fish Producers' Organisation which
adopts the Community withdrawal price. If no buyer can be found
for a particular catch at a price above the withdrawal price,
fishermen receive compensation from Community funds according
to a pre-set formula. Reference prices are used to decide if action
is needed against imports to offset severe market disturbance.
11.2 Guide prices, and the producer price for tuna, are intended
to reflect average market prices recorded within the Community
in the preceding year, and production and demand prospects. Account
is also taken of the need to support producers' incomes, to stabilise
market prices, to consider consumer interests and, in the case
of the tuna price, to take into consideration the needs of the
Community's canning industry.
The Commission proposal
11.3 The first proposal prescribes the guide price for fresh or
chilled fish for the 2007 fishing year. The Commission proposes
the following changes from the 2006 prices:
decreases of:
— 3%
for spotted dogfish and shrimp;
— 2%
for sardines and dab;
— 1.5%
for cod and albacore;
— 0.5%
for Northern prawn (fresh);
no change
for hake, ling, common flounder, shrimps, Northern prawn (boiled)
and Norway lobster (whole);
increases of:
— 3%
for herring, saithe, haddock and cuttlefish;
— 2%
for anchovy, megrim, monkfish, sole and edible crab;
— 1.5%
for mackerel and plaice;
— 1%
for plaice (May-December), dogfish, whiting, and Norway lobster
(tails); and
— 0.5%
for redfish and plaice (January-April).
11.4 The second proposal would set guide prices for
frozen fish products. The Commission proposes the following changes
from the 2006 prices:
decreases of:
— 3%
for hake (fillets) and cuttlefish;
— 2%
for hake (whole), sea bream and octopus;
— 1.5%
for prawns (other Penaeidae);
no change
for swordfish and squid;
increases
of:
— 3%
for illex;
— 2%
for prawns (parapanaeus);
— 1.5%
for Greenland halibut
11.5 The third proposal would set the Community producer
price for tuna at €1,225 per tonne, an increase of 1.5% on
the price set for 2006.
The Government's view
11.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 1 December
2006, the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) says that the proposal reflects historic practice
whereby prices are set to enable the Commission to operate its
intervention mechanisms, and that, although the UK industry receives
relatively little support under this regime, that which it does
receive is important. With that in mind, the Minister says that
the UK can support the proposal, but that the whole fisheries
marketing regime is to be reviewed, when the UK will look for
a full exchange of views on the need for having intervention schemes
in this sector.
Conclusion
11.7 The setting of the guide prices for fish
and fisheries products has sometimes proved controversial in the
past. However, as in recent years, this does not appear to be
the case on this occasion, and we are therefore clearing the proposal.
25 OJ No. L 17, 21.1.00, p.22. Back
| 
