During the debate the rapporteur pointed out that the COM in sugar had worked well up until now and that the Commission proposal attempted to reconcile all interests. He was in favour of setting inulin quotas definitively and maintaining the system of aid justified by the specific needs of certain disadvantaged regions. Commissioner Fischler pointed out that the aim was to continue to implement the current policy for six year and, as a result, he could not accept the production quotas covering only two years. The Commission also opposed the supplementary aid, which would result in discrimination. Finally, due to the particular situation of Spain, it was in favour of extending aid, except for storage costs.

The ESC approved the Commission proposal with some observations. It could accept the quota adjustment mechanism proposed by the Commission. It did, however, ask the Council to apply it with the proviso that the Commission firstly started to manage stocks and internal marketing vigorously. It supported the new rules for refining proposed by the Commission, which gave the refining industry supply guarantees that it had not previously enjoyed and offered the ACP countries new scope for preferential access. However, since these new guarantees were being introduced at a time when the guarantees given to beet and sugar producers were to be lowered under GATT, the ESC believed that the quotas for refining should not be set at a higher level than those proposed by the Commission. The ESC also firmly believed that the special preferential imports should be provided exclusively by the ACP countries. It was adamant that Community preference should be maintained throughout the EU with regard to white sugar and raw sugar produced within the EU, that quota transfers between different sweeteners should be strictly prohibited and that carryover financing should be maintained. Since 1968, Italy had been authorised to grant national adjustment aid to its beet and sugar sector. The Commission was proposing that the Council should reduce or abolish this aid, according to the region. The ESC wondered about the reliability of the statistics provided by the Commission in support of its proposal and called on the Council, before taking a decision, to bear in mind that to cut or abolish such aid would inevitably result in a sharp decrease in beet crop areas and serious repercussions for jobs in the sugar industry.

Pending the opinion of the European Parliament, the Council held an initial discussion on the new sugar arrangements to apply from 1 July 1995 and confirmed that it might be possible to reach an agreement by February given the broad consensus in favour of the Commission’s approach. However, the British and Swedish delegations did not support the majority view, recommending instead price reductions through a radical reform, which they considered to be more appropriate than a minimalist revision to improve the competitiveness of the sector. There were also some concerns with regard to specific problems such as: - the mechanism for reducing the relevant support to take account of the Marrakesh commitments (objections from France and Germany to the allocation model); - the postponement of the ending of the reimbursement of storage costs for ‘C’ sugar (opposed by eight delegations); - the harmonisation of conditions of access of four refining countries (United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Finland); - the adjustment of national aid in Italy. In conclusion, the Council instructed the Special Committee on Agriculture to continue examining the proposal and to submit a comprehensive report for its meeting in February.