11 Fruit and vegetables producer organisations
| (35916)
7658/14
C(2014) 1451
| Commission Delegated Regulation supplementing Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) No. 1306/2013 by amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 543/2011 relating to the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors.
|
| Legal base
| Article 227 of Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013
|
| Documents originated
| 11 March 2014
|
| Deposited in Parliament
| 28 March 2014
|
| Department
| Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 31 March 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report
| None |
| Discussion in Council
| See para 11.6 below
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared; further information requested
|
Background
11.1 In June 2011, the Commission adopted
Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 543/2011 laying down detailed
rules for the application in the fruit and vegetables and processed
fruit and vegetables sectors of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007
(which had established a common organisation of agricultural markets).
Following the recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 has now been replaced
by Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, which included a number of new
provisions relating to those sectors, particularly as regards
producer organisations and their operational funds, and enabled
the Commission, where necessary, to adopt delegated Regulations.
The current document
11.2 In this Delegated Regulation, the
Commission has sought to lay down rules relating to those operational
programmes and the entry price system for fruit and vegatables,
extend two provisions already in force under Council Regulation
(EC) No. 1234/2007, clarify the rules concerning certain recognition
criteria, and introduce a step-by-step sanction mechanism for
non-compliance with recognition criteria.
11.3 More specifically:
· whilst Regulation (EU) No.
1308/2013 enables a producer organisation to require its members
to market their entire production through the organisation, the
proposal would enable producers, under certain conditions, to
market their production by other means, and it would also clarify
the basis on which outsourcing may be employed;
· Implementing Regulation (EU)
No. 543/2011 obliges a Member State to take the measures needed
to avoid any abuse of power by members of a producer organisation,
and the proposal would require an organisation to provide evidence
of its democratic accountability, notably as regards the maximum
percentage of voting rights and shares held by any individual;
· Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013
enables a producer organisation to impose a financial contribution
on its members in order to fund it, and this proposal would include
within the organisation's statutes an obligation on its members
to pay the contributions needed to establish its operational fund;
· in order to avoid crisis
prevention and management measures giving rise to uneven funding
within an association of producer organisations, the proposal
would require ceilings for the relevant expenditure under the
association's operational programmes to be calculated for each
member producer organisation, and it would also establish conditions
for the replanting of orchards as part of crisis measures, including
the maximum percentage of such expenditure to be devoted to that
purpose;
· Implementing Regulation (EU)
No. 543/2011 establishes the sanctions to be applied to a producer
organisation where recognition criteria are not respected, including
the withdrawal (or suspension) of recognition, and the non-payment
of aid during such a period: this proposal would in addition
reduce the amount of aid payable for each calendar month recognition
is suspended, the amount of that reduction depending upon the
severity of the grounds for suspension; and
· the EU restricts imports
below specified entry price levels, and Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013
provides for the application of the Customs Code for the clearance
of goods subject to the system: as the goods in question are perishable,
and their value at the moment of customs clearance not always
established, the proposal would enable the Commission to adopt
rules for checking the veracity of a declared entry price against
a flat-rate import value in order to accelerate customs clearance,
and it would also require the lodging of a security where the
transaction value determined exceeds the standard import value
calculated by the Commission by more than 8%.
The Government's view
11.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of
31 March 2014, the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George
Eustice) comments that the EU arrangements for fruit and vegetable
producer organisations have had some success in helping to modernise
the industry, and in increasing productivity and innovation. However,
he adds that the number of producer organisations in the UK has
dropped in recent years, and that by 2010 only 31% of UK growers
with the equivalent of at least one full-time worker belonged
to a such an organisation — a development which the Government
believes is due in part to the ambiguity and complexity of thepresent
rules.
11.5 As regards the current proposal,
the Minister says that an earlier draft, which dealt only with
the requirements relating to the financial contribution required
from producer organisation members and setting limits for expenditure
on crisis management and prevention, had UK support. However,
he points out that the proposal now includes a number of provisions
which have proved to be highly contentious, notably as regards
voting rights, the limitation on the quantity of shares which
a member can hold, and the "punitive" penalties for
producer organisations which do not meet the strict recognition
criteria set out inImplementing Regulation (EU) No. 543/2011.
He describes the last of these as being of most concern, adding
that the other sanctions proposed — a warning period, followed
by suspension of the producer organisation, when no aid is paid
— as sufficient to cause on organisation to take corrective
action, since the cash flow implications of suspending payments
are a serious deterrent in themselves. Finally, the Minister points
out that these Articles are currently being considered in the
context of an exercise by the Commission to re-writeImplementing
Regulation (EU) No. 543/2011, and should not therefore be included
within the current measure. Since the relevant rules of procedure
underRegulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 enable the Council to accept
or reject a Delegated Regulation of this kind (but not to amend
it), the UK feels it has no choice but to oppose the whole proposal.
11.6 The Minister also points out that
the proposal was sent to the Council and European Parliament on
11 March 2014, and thatRegulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 gives each
body two months to consider it. He says that the text is shortly
to be considered at a meeting of the Agriculture Council.
Conclusion
11.7 Although Delegated Regulations
of this kind are not routinely subject to parliamentary scrutiny,
it seemed to us that this particular document might raise issues
requiring it to be deposited, and, in the light of what the Government
has told us, we believe that decision to have been vindicated,
and we are accordingly drawing the document to the attention of
the House. Having said that, we note that, under the rules of
procedure set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, the options
available to the Council are limited, and those available to an
individual Member State even more so. As it is, we note that the
UK has opposed the proposal, and we therefore see no useful purpose
in holding the document under scrutiny, particularly as the area
it deals with is relatively narrow. Nevertheless, we would be
glad if the Government could inform us of the eventual outcome.
|
