Activities of Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO related to 2015/2065(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (A8-0173/2016 - Edward Czesak) ES
Amendments (49)
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas UTPs have adverse effects on the weakest link in the chain, farmers and SMEs; whereas the economic impact of those adverse effects is thought to run into billions of euros;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that CAP reform introduced measures aimed at addressing the bargaining power gap between farmers and other stakeholders in the food supply chain; adds, however, that it brought in no specific measures to combat unfair trade practices,
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas significant structural changes have taken place in the business-to- business (B2B) food supply chain in recent years, involving concentration and vertical integration of entities operating in the production, sector, and especially in the processing and retail sectors;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that although there already is EU legislation designed to prevent unfair business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices (Directive 29/2005), it is insufficient to address unfair practices in the food supply chain; calls, therefore, on the Commission to draft a directive to put an end to unfair business- to-business (B2B) commercial practices;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls on the Commission to interpret competition law with due account for the efficiency and the well-being of producers so as to eliminate imbalances in the food chain;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas unfair practices may have harmful consequences for the food supply chain, whichparticularly where farmers and SMEs are concerned, and whereas that in turn may havehas a detrimental impact on the entire EU economy; whereas UTPs may discourage cross-border trade in the EU and whereas they hinder the proper functioning of the internal market; whereas unfair practices can result in particular in enterprises cutting back on investment and innovation owing to a reduction in income and a lack of certainty, and may lead them to abandon production, processing or trading activities;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas some Member States that had initially chosen to counter UTPs by means of voluntary schemes have subsequently decided to address them through legislation;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I b (new)
Recital I b (new)
Ib. whereas the various steps taken by the Member States may cause distortions in the internal market if there are no EU- level measures to prevent such problems;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the Supply Chain Initiative has major limitations – e.g. there are no penalties for non-compliance and there is no option of lodging confidential complaints – meaning that it cannot be used effectively as a tool to combat UTPs;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K b (new)
Recital K b (new)
Kb. whereas the Supply Chain Initiative does not include a precise definition of ‘unfair trading practice’;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the steps taken to date by the CommissionPoints out that the action the Commission has taken thus far is not sufficient to combat UTPs with a view to securing a more balanced market;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Points out that although there is already European legislation designed to prevent unfair business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices (Directive 2005/29/EC), that legislation is not sufficient to address unfair practices in the food supply chain; in that regard, calls on the Commission to draw up a directive that makes it possible to put an end to UTPs in business-to-business (B2B) relations;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. WelcomesAcknowledges as a first step the action taken by the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning of the Food Supply Chain and the setting up of the expert platform on B2B practices, which has drawn up a list, a description and an assessment of trading practices that may be regarded as grossly unfair, but takes the view that a clear definition of ‘unfair trading practice’ should have been established;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WCautiously welcomes the setting up of the Supply Chain Initiative, which has resulted in the adoption of a set of principles of good practice in B2B relations in the food supply chain and a voluntary framework for the implementation of those principles; believes that efforts to promote fair trading practices in the food supply chain can make a real impactshould make an impact, although the serious shortcomings of the initiative – such as the fact that it is not possible to lodge confidential complaints, and the fact that there are no effective penalties – mean that it is utterly inadequate for the purpose of combating UTPs;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. WelcomesTakes the view that the principles of good practice and the list of examples of fair and unfair practices in vertical relations in the food supply chain; shares the view that these standards now need to be enforced ought to be extended and enforced in an effective manner;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. WCautiously welcomes the setting up of national platforms of organisations and businesses in the food supply chain to promote fair trading practices and seek to put an end to UTPs; points out that specific EU regulation needs to be brought in alongside those platforms;
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. WelcomesEmphasises that the development of alternative and informal mechanisms for dispute settlement and redress, in particular through mediation and amicable arrangements, can provide solutions as long as it is accompanied by relevant legislation to ensure compliance;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Confirms the existence of UTPs in the food supply chain that arise as a result of imbalances in bargaining power and acknowledges that they are contrary to the basic principles of law;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Calls on the Commission to look in detail at possible developments as regards ‘own brands’, the effects of which, especially in the current economic crisis, are positive for consumers, but in the medium to long term could become negative, not only jeopardising the competitiveness of the agri-food industry but also curtailing consumer choice if the market penetration of own brands were to exceed a certain risk threshold, which ought to be set for each category of product;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that UTPs imposed by parties in a stronger bargaining position clearly have a negative impact; stresses that UTPs can hamper investment and product innovation, their quality and variety and could limit the choice for consumers;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that the Supply Chain Initiative and other national and EU voluntary systems (codes of good practice, voluntary dispute settlement mechanisms) should be further developed and promoted alongside relevant EU legislation ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties; encourages producers and traders to become involved in such initiatives; takes the view that they should play a leading role in efforts to combat UTPs;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Takes the view that the European Supply Chain Initiative needs to be changed in order to address its shortcomings, in particular by ensuring that complaints can be lodged anonymously and establishing dissuasive penalties; takes the view that the initiative needs to be brought in alongside the EU legislation required to ensure that those shortcomings are addressed;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12b. Emphasises that in spite of the aforementioned initiative, producers and SMEs are being subjected to UTPs, as demonstrated by the current market crisis that certain sectors, such as the dairy industry, are experiencing;
Amendment 179 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Calls on the Commission to look in detail at possible developments as regards ‘own brands’, the effects of which, especially in the current economic crisis, are positive for consumers, but in the medium to long term could become negative, not only jeopardising the competitiveness of the agri-food industry but also curtailing consumer choice if the market penetration of own brands were to exceed a certain risk threshold, which ought to be set for each category of product;
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Calls on the Commission to interpret competition law in such a way that the efficiency and welfare of producers are taken into account in order to correct the imbalances in the food chain;
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Urges the Commission to submit specific proposals for EU legislationwithout delay specific legislative proposals to establish an unitary EU framework, defining general principles and respecting national realities and best practices, with the aim of banning UTPs in the entire food supply chain that will enable markets to operate as they should and fair and transparent relations to be maintained between food producers, suppliers and distributors;
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Suggests that work should begin on EU rules on the establishment ormutual recognition of national public agencies with responsibility for enforcing laws to combat unfair practices in the food supply chain; takes the view that public agencies of this kind should be empowered to conduct investigations on their own initiativeex- oficio and/or on the basis of informal information and/or on the basis of complaints dealt with on a confidential basis (thus overcoming the fear factor), as well as to impose penalties;
Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to assess the voluntary and self-regulatory schemes put in place to date and the effectiveness of the regulatory action taken at national and EU level; calls for a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the problems raised and resolved between the various operators in the food chain; calls for an assessment of the likely impact of the various types of EU regulatory action that have been proposed, with due account being taken of all the possible implications for the various stakeholders and for consumer welfare;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. WelcomAcknowledges the setting up of the Supply Chain Initiative, which has resulted in the adoption of a set of principles of good practice in B2B relations in the food supply chain and a voluntary framework for the implementation of those principles; believes that efforts to promote fair trading practices in the food supply chain can make a real impactn impact, but cannot be considered sufficient to tackle the problem of UTPs in the food supply chain; notes that the results emerged from the conclusions of the Commission's study on the SCI recently published "seem very modest if measured against the actual or perceived magnitude and seriousness of the issue of UTPs in the food supply chain, and even more so if measured against the expectations of the stakeholders which are most seriously impacted by UTPs, and of policy makers";
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Is very concerned about recent findings that one of the early signatories of the SCI operating across Europe has been found guilty of unreasonably delaying payments to its suppliers; regrets that neither the Commission nor the SCI has directly reported this finding in their reports;
Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Notes that the complaints issued in the framework of the voluntary codes, specifically within the SCI, are very limited, as it has been spotted by the Commission's study on the SCI; notes also that the Commission's study does not precisely indicate the number of disputes solved in the last years, rendering thus impossible to assess the effectiveness of the SCI in tackling the problem of UTPs in the food supply chain;
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Is concerned about the Commission report which does not take into account many findings of the study, notably with regard to the assessment of voluntary approaches;
Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Emphasizes that, as it has been reported by the Commission's study, the SCI, at the moment, does not have robust enforcement mechanisms nor effective deterrent instruments and penalties, such as monetary and/or economic sanctions, which will be able to address the problem of the UTPs in the food supply chain; therefore, asks the Commission to undertake concrete actions to establish effective enforcement mechanisms capable to act cross-borders, such as the establishment of an independent EU enforcement authority or a network of national authorities, mutually recognized at the EU level; these independent authorities shall be empowered to conduct investigations ex-oficio and/or on the basis of informal information and/or on the basis of complaints dealt with on a confidential basis, thus overcoming the so-called "fear factor";
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Regrets that no concrete case has been examined to assess the SCI role in tackling unfair trading practices;
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Regrets that some of the dispute resolution options promoted by the SCI have not yet been used in practice and the assessment of their effectiveness has been based more on "theoretical" judgments rather than on empirical observation;
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Rather than simply encouraging some improvements in the SCI, stresses that study evaluating the effectiveness of the SCI highlights a broad range of its shortcomings – lack of trust from external experts and organisations, weaknesses in governance, under-representation of SMEs, limitations in transparency and no enforcement measures and penalties;
Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Stresses the evaluation of the study which concludes that SCI has very limited powers to directly enforce measures to address UTPs, notably due to the lack of effective deterrents against unfair behaviour;
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)
Paragraph 3 h (new)
3h. Regrets that study assessed only 4 national voluntary initiatives; points out that only one of those is generally considered as effective and adequate; on the contrary, another one has been negatively affected by serious weaknesses and no disputes have been brought before the board to date;
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)
Paragraph 3 i (new)
3i. Points out that recent study findings do not bring the evidence for the Commission's evaluation statement that voluntary initiatives seem to work better in some countries than in others, and that the Commission should seriously take into account several rather negative national experiences with voluntary agreements in order to move towards establishing concrete legislative and enforcing measures to prevent unfair trading practices;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Points out, following the recent Commission study main findings on the Supply chain initiative, that more than 20 Member States have introduced legislation to combat UTPs or are planning to do so in the near future; welcomes that Commission report identifies a number of specific areas to be improved in this regard; believes, that this set of best practices should serve as a basis for effective and transparent framework of legislative and enforcement measures in the EU;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11a. Regrets that, despite the limits of voluntary codes and initiatives have been clearly highlighted by the conclusions of the Commission's study on the SCI, the Commission does not seem willing to proceed with the swift adoption of a specific EU legislative framework which could better protect consumers, ensure a level-playing field among the stakeholders of the food supply chain, limit the current fragmentation of the single market and effectively tackle the UTPs;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11b. Underlines that the safeguard of confidentiality is an essential component of any dispute resolution process; stresses that the SCI does not provide for a mechanism ensuring confidential or anonymous complaints for potential victims of UTPs. Therefore, asks the Commission to establish a monitoring instrument to ensure and preserve the confidentiality between the parties involved in the dispute, thus reducing the so-called "fear factor";
Amendment 372 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes results of the study, where survey respondents indicated as the most preferred approaches in tackling UTPs the combination of voluntary initiatives and public enforcement (33% of total answers) or a specific legislation at EU level (32%); on the other side, reliance on voluntary initiatives alone at national (4%) or EU level (9 %) resulted to be the less preferred approach;
Amendment 373 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 b (new)
Paragraph 17 b (new)
17b. Believes that in order to reduce UTPs effectively, the Commission should take concrete measures to create common binding rules and should establish or appoint a network of national enforcement authorities which operate according to minimum principles and enforcement standards developed at the EU level;
Amendment 375 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 d (new)
Paragraph 17 d (new)
17d. Welcomes that the Commission finds it necessary to ensure that UTP legislation covers operators from non-EU countries; Believes that clear and transparent rules at the EU level would facilitate fair trading practices towards third countries traders;
Amendment 379 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18b. Believes that the scope of enforcement should cover entire supply chain both inside Europe and overseas in order to positively contribute to the overall sustainability of the food production; suggests coordinated enforcement across the EU to discourage market players from moving their purchasing department to low-enforcement countries to continue with UTPs;
Amendment 380 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 c (new)
Paragraph 18 c (new)
18c. Calls on Member States without a competent enforcement authority to consider establishment of enforcement authority and provide it with the power to supervise and enforce measures necessary to tackle UTPs;
Amendment 381 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 d (new)
Paragraph 18 d (new)
18d. Points out that existing fragmented and low enhanced cooperation within different national enforcement bodies is not sufficient to address cross-border challenges regarding UTPs;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 e (new)
Paragraph 18 e (new)
18e. Highlights that the enforcement authorities should have a number of different enforcement measures and different range of sanctions at their disposal to allow, according to the gravity, flexibility of response; believes that these measures should aim at changing behaviour and deterrence;